FAA Monetized Youtube Drone Videos 2020

[MtnFlyer]

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!

 

[SmilingOgre]

Good luck! You're dealing with the Gooberment. They have no idea. I've read that if you check your gutters the FAA could have a fit and throw [Language removed by Admin]. As you infer, it comes down to what is the direction of the wind. Is the Gooberment focusing on monetized Youtube channels? I guess you could read FAA regulations if you can decipher them. To me they're just fragmented non-sequiturs and contradictions mixed with useless babble. Maybe write them and become a target?

 

[MtnFlyer]

Good luck! You're dealing with the Gooberment. They have no idea. I've read that if you check your gutters the FAA could have a fit and throw ****. As you infer, it comes down to what is the direction of the wind. Is the Gooberment focusing on monetized Youtube channels? I guess you could read FAA regulations if you can decipher them. To me they're just fragmented non-sequiturs and contradictions mixed with useless babble. Maybe write them and become a target?

I’m probably a target now - LOL!

Here’s our channel if anyone wants a look- see...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[PhantomFandom]

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 saying 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?

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Hello and welcome to the forum. You have a lot of good (and often contested) questions.

First of all, it really does not matter whether or not the flight, mission, video, postng (etc) was monetized or not. The criteria ofr recreational vs commercial operation is the intent of the flight (at the time of the flight. If the flight was purely for recreational reasons (i.e. just for fun, no intent in furtherance of a business, nothing other than pure recreation) then it is a recreational flight. If it is anything other than recreational then it falls under Part 107.

The first question is the actual purpose of these videos taken of your business operations (cutting and baling hay) even before talking about the YouTube issue. Do they help you do the job better? Do they allow you to check on the process? Do they in any way help with your farming? Most outsiders would logically think so, and if that is the case then the flights themselves fall under Part 107 right from the start.

Once you put them on a monetized YouTube channel then of course they fall under part 107 (if your intent was for that purpose to start with).

It seems your flights would fall under part 107 regulations no matter what.

Does the FAA care? Would they come after you? Don't they have better things to do and bigger fish to fry?
Of course they will most likely not care at all. However, all it takes is one incident or one complaint and they will be obligated to investigate What if the drone crashes during a flight and injures someone? What if the battery explodes and starts a fire on the ground? What if a competing farmer reports you for posting videos and not being licensed? Any of those potential situations would trigger an investigation and then you would be liable.

It's just easier to get your Part 10 7 license. A very easy process.

 

[Repaid1]

First post - go easy on me...



However...

I cannot find a single post or video where someone in 2020 was warned or fined for posting monetized YouTube drone videos.

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:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Deleted Member 997]

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

 

[Meta4]

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

The FAA doesn't .. it's internet and forum people that get in a flap over this.
The FAA/commercial use/107 topic gets the forum fundamentalists going every time, but the actual FAA seem to be more interested in things that actually matter.
This issue seems to have started up back in the dark ages of recreational drone use.
Back when the FAA originally prohibited commercial use of drones and eventually modified that to allowing restricted commercial use, but only if you had a real airplane licence ( Section 333 exemption).
Here's an account of the origin of this persistent myth: FAA Admits That They Shouldn't Be Ordering People To Delete Drone Videos

 

[Deleted Member 997]

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:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

That's his fault for not following the VLOS

 

[DanaMc]

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!

I read a post just this past week where a drone pilot was contacted by the FAA about potential infractions discovered from a YouTube video. After a long conversation it was determined there was no danger to people or property and the pilot agreed and secured his 107 license. Case closed. He was indirectly monetizing his work and that was the main concern from the FAA. I remember the pilot was clear the interaction with the FAA was quite amicable. No fines. Basically a warning and a strong request. He fulfilled the request. Case closed.

 

[Fort Pierce Pilot]

I had similar concerns using video of MH communities in my work with non-profits. I plan to use some of the pictures to promote my first book as well. Taking my 107 test this Tuesday so I'll not have any worries. I am also seeing community regulations in Florida that limit flights by residents or visitors in the community to FAA licensed remote pilots. Another good reason to get the certification. Lastly, I want to photo some Christmas light displays in our park. This will necessitate a night waiver which I believe I could only get by completing 107.

 

[Capt KO]

I had similar concerns using video of MH communities in my work with non-profits. I plan to use some of the pictures to promote my first book as well. Taking my 107 test this Tuesday so I'll not have any worries. I am also seeing community regulations in Florida that limit flights by residents or visitors in the community to FAA licensed remote pilots. Another good reason to get the certification. Lastly, I want to photo some Christmas light displays in our park. This will necessitate a night waiver which I believe I could only get by completing 107.

Night flight is legal recreational ? and nearly everyone with a drone is FAA registered. (Not 107) You should be good. Sometimes being licensed just adds a lot of additional restrictions. Best of luck and have fun.

 

[Fort Pierce Pilot]

I am in Class D airspace where I live. I don't know if I can get authorization at night as a recreational pilot. I know LAANC won't grant it. Doesn't much matter though I will be Part 107 shortly. It's a choice I'm happy with but I can see your point if you are only flying for personal enjoyment.

 

[Rockport]

I’m probably a target now - LOL!

Here’s our channel if anyone wants a look- see...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Loved the video!

 

[MtnFlyer]

Loved the video!

Thank you!

 

[PhantomFandom]

Interpretation of the 107 is if your flying in service of someone paying you for your services.

Sorry but that is absolutely NOT true. Compensation has nothing to do with the regulations.

 

[MtnFlyer]

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!

 

[Meta4]

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.

Puzzle no more.
The FAA could not care less if you want to attempt to make $0.37 by putting your video on a monetised Youtube channel.
And your concern about shooting real estate work is missing the point.
The FAA has no rules about photography or what you do with it.
They have rules and regulations regarding flying.
The reason no-one has sued the FAA for their trousers over this is because it's not a free speech issue at all.
It's about the flying, not the photography.
If you want to fly for hire, their regulations require a 107.

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.
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.

The reason it doesn't sound right is because that's not correct.

 

[Deleted Member 997]

Puzzle no more.
The FAA could not care less if you want to attempt to make $0.37 by putting your video on a monetised Youtube channel.
And your concern about shooting real estate work is missing the point.
The FAA has no rules about photography or what you do with it.
They have rules and regulations regarding flying.
The reason no-one has sued the FAA for their trousers over this is because it's not a free speech issue at all.
It's about the flying, not the photography.
If you want to fly for hire, their regulations require a 107.

The reason it doesn't sound right is because that's not correct.

Your beating a dead horse Meta4

 

[Meta4]

Your beating a dead horse Meta4

I'm attempting to clarify some misunderstanding for the OP.

 

[itsneedtokno]

It's about the flying, not the photography.
If you want to fly for hire, their regulations require a 107.

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.

For example: if I was to fly my drone over a friend's house, with even the possibility of compensation in the future... It's a 107 flight. They never hired me, I wasn't flying for my business, I was flying on my time, but not just for fun. My intention would be to make a "sample" RE video for them, for a nominal fee. Even $5 requires a 107.

I know you know this Meta.

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

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