FAA Monetized Youtube Drone Videos 2020

[itallica]

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.”

This fits with exactly why (other than covid) I got my p107. The advice was summed up as I was posting my fun hobby videos to Facebook/twitter/instagram. Because this was self promotion on SM I need p107.

I have aspirations to make the hobby pay for itself, and maybe even fly for where I work, so the issue wasn't too big of a burr under my saddle.

 

[Texbow]

This fits with exactly why (other than covid) I got my p107. The advice was summed up as I was posting my fun hobby videos to Facebook/twitter/instagram. Because this was self promotion on SM I need p107.

I have aspirations to make the hobby pay for itself, and maybe even fly for where I work, so the issue wasn't too big of a burr under my saddle.

And in the process you no doubt learned more about safe drone operations. Win Win.

 

[lookout]

Part 107 reads more like common law.

If there's someone that is hurt and you aren't a doctor and are unable to help them without hurting them or the attempt is failed there is no legal reprecussions.

But if you are a doctor (and most likely not in your office at the time), and you fail to be able to take care of the person, then the legal reprecussions are the maximum allowed by law.

Oftentimes legislation is written in such a way that defeats any incentives of raising the bar or doing things differently than they are now and does little to accomplish the goal.

 

[DavidT_ NZ]

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:

The colours in this video are excellent. And was it a Mini 2? Whatever the drone, the footage exemplifies how great these little drones capture imagery never seen before in such detail. And he sounded like a responsible flier, too. ??

 

[B52-D]

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.

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.

Fixed wing pilots who fly for pleasure do so under Title 14, Part 91 regulations. If Fixed Wing pilots fly a CLIENT to a golf outing for compensation or hire, he will be under Title 14, Part 135 air taxi operation.

 

[lookout]

Fixed wing pilots who fly for pleasure do so under Title 14, Part 91 regulations. If Fixed Wing pilots fly a CLIENT to a golf outing for compensation or hire, he will be under Title 14, Part 135 air taxi operation.

Or commercial.

 

[MavicAir2Hal]

I did watch the video about the pilot getting fined. He's a funny guy but on the serious side. He did live streaming of a flight in a restricted zone and well over the 400 feet limit in the big metropolis city and he accepted the liability of going into that zone by clicking on the warning. I don't feel the fine is justified by the violation. They may be using him as an example and encouraging others to get the part 107.I wonder too if posting videos on YouTube can be of issue. Even though I'm not monetizing anything. Someone could take your video and make money on it. Seems desperate to me. Plus with all of the popular ads. Those companies thrive on your posts in order to obtain a sale.
Just my opinion

 

[lookout]

Google is owned by the CIA, so they're like hey hey hey did you see this?

 

[UAS_Dude]

Google is owned by the CIA, so they're like hey hey hey did you see this?

And the Earth is flat too, right?

 

[lookout]

And the Earth is flat too, right?

Because Aristotle considered heliocentricism but rejected it because it didn't go with his theories on gravity, he chose geocentricism. So it was geocentricism for a long time. Due to the fact that the Catholic church couldn't decide how to interpret that the earth was fixed, they figured that meant geocentricism. But they didn't really have a stance, until one of their own investigated heliocentricism again, and they burned him at the stake for it (just for challenging it). Newton came up with theories of gravity and motion and other prodigies of Copernicus proved that heliocentricism was in fact right. Galileo was for the sake of taking back his claims of heliocentricism would also have been burned at the stake.

 

[Recoveryone]

 

[Apocalypso]

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.”

I've seen a couple of FAA non-answer responses online about posting to "social media" and no longer owning the rights to the image. (Stay tuned below, this is patently false, but irrelevant here in any case for the subject at hand.)

1) See how they didn't directly answer your question? That's the first sign they're, well, not really into answering your question. Because they'd rather CYA and keep you guessing. They do not want to be tied down to anything they say, so they CYA. But actually they do answer their question, and that answer is "get certified and go away".

2) The ONLY written, documented definition the FAA gives for "recreational purposes" is "flying your drone for fun". Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations If you click the link on the word "There's a law...." and scroll down to the appropriate section towards the end, they don't define "recreational purposes" there either.

3) There is a reason they don't define it. Since this is a Part 107 carve out, what they really mean for "recreational purposes" is that you're not doing anything that could be considered commercial AND you're flying the drone for fun. IF you meet both of those conditions, then you're flying for "recreational purposes". Further, one can conclude from the decision tree in the FAAs User Identification Tool that if you're flying for business, a commercial enterprise, non-profit work or for educational purposes, then you're considered commercial. Clearly if you're making any money or deriving any benefit you're considered commercial.

4) Now on to "losing ownership rights" by posting "imagery" to "social media". First, for the sake of argument, let's assume that's true. (Though it's not, it's a lie and false, read on). How is that commercial? Note the HUGE nonsensical leap there. I'm not making money. I didn't contract with anyone to provide or produce the imagery. I'm not doing it for anyone but myself. It's simply public artistic expression. Which by the way, is expressly protected by laws against infringement. Especially from the government. But we need not worry about that, because they made this up. Why? See #1.

Consider Facebook/Instagram Terms of Service
"You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want."

Consider YouTube Terms of Service - YouTube
"You retain ownership rights in your Content."

So the FAA is FOS.

 

[lookout]

That fine about having a drone that you should have registered but didn't under some not really quickly or conspicious layed out reasons could rack up really quickly, but that still falls under part 107 or assumes that you are flying under part 107. Not sure that applies to this situation, but they do hit that for every infraction. Why they had to have the carve out section for recreational flying and add the modelling guys under the new part 107 really keeps things confusing. It's like lots of rules that get passed before we're allowed to read into it or they go back and define the stuff later on.

 

[lookout]

I've seen a couple of FAA non-answer responses online about posting to "social media" and no longer owning the rights to the image. (Stay tuned below, this is patently false, but irrelevant here in any case for the subject at hand.)

1) See how they didn't directly answer your question? That's the first sign they're, well, not really into answering your question. Because they'd rather CYA and keep you guessing. They do not want to be tied down to anything they say, so they CYA. But actually they do answer their question, and that answer is "get certified and go away".

2) The ONLY written, documented definition the FAA gives for "recreational purposes" is "flying your drone for fun". Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations If you click the link on the word "There's a law...." and scroll down to the appropriate section towards the end, they don't define "recreational purposes" there either.

3) There is a reason they don't define it. Since this is a Part 107 carve out, what they really mean for "recreational purposes" is that you're not doing anything that could be considered commercial AND you're flying the drone for fun. IF you meet both of those conditions, then you're flying for "recreational purposes". Further, one can conclude from the decision tree in the FAAs User Identification Tool that if you're flying for business, a commercial enterprise, non-profit work or for educational purposes, then you're considered commercial. Clearly if you're making any money or deriving any benefit you're considered commercial.

4) Now on to "losing ownership rights" by posting "imagery" to "social media". First, let's assume that's true. How is that commercial? Note the HUGE nonsensical leap there. I'm not making money. I didn't contract with anyone to provide or produce the imagery. I'm not doing it for anyone but myself. It's simply public artistic expression. Which by the way, is expressly protected by laws against infringement. Especially from the government. But we need not worry about that, because they made this up. Why? See #1.

Consider Facebook Terms of Service
"You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want."

Consider YouTube Terms of Service - YouTube
"You retain ownership rights in your Content."

So the FAA is FOS.

Much of those terms of service seem to like to think they own whatever you post on their site. But in a liability standpoint, they don't want to take any chances that if you don't actually own it, then trouble starts and they aren't gonna help you out.

 

[BigAl07]

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.

I agree with part of what you're saying. I too think EVERY UAS operator in the US (Under FAA Authority) should have what we now call Part 107. Way too much grey area. But I think Commercial Operators should have a much stricter course and there should be a Flight Proficiency aspect of the requirement. It's crazy that you can get your Part 107 and never even seen (let alone flown) a UAS. CRAZY!

On the later part of your comment....
Yes you've definitely missed something along the way - Any pilot operating Commercially has the proper licensing for such and it's not Private/Sport Pilot. As already stated they have a MIN of A Commercial Pilots License (CPL). Just like Part 107, a CPL does NOT limit the operator from doing NON-Commercial work. A CPL can fly for fun just like a SPL/PPL can but they have the LUXURY of also being able to fly for HIRE. Same as Part 107. As a Part 107 holder I can fly for hobby/recreation at any time so long as I follow Hobby/Recreational rules but I can ALSO turn around, land the UAS and take off again flying under Part 107 rules.

Yes the FAA very much DOES care if a non-CPL pilot is flying commercially and will result in disciplinary actions which could result in losing FAA Pilot privileges.

 

[Jekjr]

I am a part 107 Pilot. On my study materials one scenario given was of a farmer that bought a drone for recreational purposes. He wold have no issues with being in compliance flying all over his property. No problem. One day he realizes it is getting dry and decides that he can best analyze his land by flying his drone over the crops. According to the materials that is where he crosses the line from a recreational flyer. He is not using it to further a business.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

I am a part 107 Pilot. On my study materials one scenario given was of a farmer that bought a drone for recreational purposes. He wold have no issues with being in compliance flying all over his property. No problem. One day he realizes it is getting dry and decides that he can best analyze his land by flying his drone over the crops. According to the materials that is where he crosses the line from a recreational flyer. He is not using it to further a business.

His business is his farm so yes he is furthering his business by providing data that will make him more profit at the end of growing season. Now instead of a bunch of dried out crops he has a very nice field of well watered crops so he would need his part 107.

 

[lookout]

I agree with part of what you're saying. I too think EVERY UAS operator in the US (Under FAA Authority) should have what we now call Part 107. Way too much grey area. But I think Commercial Operators should have a much stricter course and there should be a Flight Proficiency aspect of the requirement. It's crazy that you can get your Part 107 and never even seen (let alone flown) a UAS. CRAZY!

On the later part of your comment....
Yes you've definitely missed something along the way - Any pilot operating Commercially has the proper licensing for such and it's not Private/Sport Pilot. As already stated they have a MIN of A Commercial Pilots License (CPL). Just like Part 107, a CPL does NOT limit the operator from doing NON-Commercial work. A CPL can fly for fun just like a SPL/PPL can but they have the LUXURY of also being able to fly for HIRE. Same as Part 107. As a Part 107 holder I can fly for hobby/recreation at any time so long as I follow Hobby/Recreational rules but I can ALSO turn around, land the UAS and take off again flying under Part 107 rules.

Yes the FAA very much DOES care if a non-CPL pilot is flying commercially and will result in disciplinary actions which could result in losing FAA Pilot privileges.

Not to mention that private instrument and commercial are separate tickets, but some what tiered.

You can't make it to commercial or instrument first without getting the private.

And the requirement of knowing everything about the flight, and the operation of the aircraft.

But if the RPIC is always standing by, and never flies it because they leave the driving up to the RC guy, what good is it going to do if the RPIC doesn't know what to do at the RC if he has to take the controls? And in some cases the drone has completely lost connection. Handing over controls from one guy in one seat to the other guy in the other seat, is different in aircraft vs. flying a drone.

Part 107 should only concern itself with airspace. Anybody can just go race out in the crowd mania and get themselves in trouble running their drone all over the countryside. What you do with the drone is only important where problems with airspace might arise.

The commercial part of it, would imply that I also have to register my business (if applicable) with a local authority if the career is only in drone operations. But that's too much trouble, so maybe the FAA covers the commercial side of it too? Last time I looked at industry certification, it was basically designed by the industry, take the test at one of these testing centers, but the only reason was if there was an insurance claim being made. In some cases it was good for bookworms, but not necessarily a measure of competency. I was working it before the certifications came along.

 

[lookout]

His business is his farm so yes he is furthering his business by providing data that will make him more profit at the end of growing season. Now instead of a bunch of dried out crops he has a very nice field of well watered crops so he would need his part 107.

Probably the way the FAA would look at it no doubt.

But it is the farmers' property that he is already flying over, and possibly discovered that one crop is performing differently than the row over from it. It doesn't involve any other entity besides his own. What he does on his property shouldn't matter to the FAA even if it is a farm. He is also not invading any airspace, so the FAA wouldn't even have a concern there.

In this case, the FAA would be telling the farmer what he can or can't do on his own private property on the auspices of being in airspace (but that wouldn't be the case below 400' AGL in uncontrolled airspace). Most governments say that we can't do this or that, because this is private property and not public property. But why do the patrol cars owned by the city sit on private property with their speed gun in their lap (thus increasing the chances of cancer in a certain area of the body), and proceed to extort from the general public usually only on posted speed limits and not on the unobserved merits on their ability to drive safely?

 

[DonDayan]

First post - go easy on me...

I recently bought a Mavic Mini and am taking videos on our farm cutting and baling hay and will have other related content too. Presently we have a monetized Youtube channel and would like to post a few drone videos showing our farming along with our other videos. None of the material we would post is to further our farm business or promote any of our crops for sale. Our videos, all of them, are a kind of a vblog.

I’ve read a TON of posts and watched videos on Part 107 and commercial vs hobby and it seems like most of these posts and videos are from 2015 into 2017. From these I read, if you monetize your videos on YouTube, you are commercial and need 107. I also read occasionally, the FAA is not going after youtubers that monetize their videos. I don’t feel our YouTube channel is a business. Heck we don’t make enough money to pay for the drone, cameras and SD cards - LOL.

I’m OK to post non-monetized drone videos to my otherwise monetized channel if that’s what I need to do. However...

If it’s truly OK to post monetized videos to YouTube, I’d like to know.

Most, if not all of the videos I see say that monetized YouTube videos are commercial are from folks selling test prep material or someone who has a 107 certificate and I don’t blame them for claiming monetized drone videos are furtherance of a business, I’d do the same...

However...

I cannot find a single post or video where someone in 2020 was warned or fined for posting monetized YouTube drone videos.
I think there are a LOT of monetized YouTube drone videos going up every day by drone pilots who do not have a 107 license. One would think if fines were being issued, Youtube would be flush with videos about it.

So my question is - where does the FAA come down on 107 requirements for monetized Youtube videos in 2020?

Is there a 1st Admendment issue with the FAA telling youtubers with monetized drone videos they need a 107 before publishing to the internet? Seems to me that requiring one to pay a fee and take a test before posting a video that happens to make money is unconstitutional. If they told the networks and news papers, you have to pay a fee and take a test before you can publish, I'm not sure that would fly (no pun intended).

Again - I've got no problem with posting non-monetized drone videos to our otherwise monetized channel, but I'd like to know.

Thanks!

First post - go easy on me...

I recently bought a Mavic Mini and am taking videos on our farm cutting and baling hay and will have other related content too. Presently we have a monetized Youtube channel and would like to post a few drone videos showing our farming along with our other videos. None of the material we would post is to further our farm business or promote any of our crops for sale. Our videos, all of them, are a kind of a vblog.

I’ve read a TON of posts and watched videos on Part 107 and commercial vs hobby and it seems like most of these posts and videos are from 2015 into 2017. From these I read, if you monetize your videos on YouTube, you are commercial and need 107. I also read occasionally, the FAA is not going after youtubers that monetize their videos. I don’t feel our YouTube channel is a business. Heck we don’t make enough money to pay for the drone, cameras and SD cards - LOL.

I’m OK to post non-monetized drone videos to my otherwise monetized channel if that’s what I need to do. However...

If it’s truly OK to post monetized videos to YouTube, I’d like to know.

Most, if not all of the videos I see say that monetized YouTube videos are commercial are from folks selling test prep material or someone who has a 107 certificate and I don’t blame them for claiming monetized drone videos are furtherance of a business, I’d do the same...

However...

I cannot find a single post or video where someone in 2020 was warned or fined for posting monetized YouTube drone videos.
I think there are a LOT of monetized YouTube drone videos going up every day by drone pilots who do not have a 107 license. One would think if fines were being issued, Youtube would be flush with videos about it.

So my question is - where does the FAA come down on 107 requirements for monetized Youtube videos in 2020?

Is there a 1st Admendment issue with the FAA telling youtubers with monetized drone videos they need a 107 before publishing to the internet? Seems to me that requiring one to pay a fee and take a test before posting a video that happens to make money is unconstitutional. If they told the networks and news papers, you have to pay a fee and take a test before you can publish, I'm not sure that would fly (no pun intended).

Again - I've got no problem with posting non-monetized drone videos to our otherwise monetized channel, but I'd like to know.

Thanks!

Just in case anyone believes posting drone photography on YouTube is harmless, and that the “FAA” doesn’t have any interest in these videos... check out PhillyDroneLife’s YouTube channel. He was recently fined over $180,000 by the FAA for i believe 123 violations of federal drone laws. Just saying