Flying over people...

[Classic flyer]

You have to do what you have to in life. We chose to do it the way we feel comfortable so we don’t have to look over our shoulder and be concerned how invasive media can be and used against us.

COMMON SENSE and SAFETY rule the day...be safe, fly smart

 

[bsartist]

Our attorney Traverse legal.....It’s also common sense

My personal opinion is that your attorneys are taking an arbitrary and overly restrictive interpretation. They are entitled to their opinion too of course. But they can also be wrong. Esp. since I doubt the issue has ever been adjudicated in that way. Such an adjudication would be more definitive.

Also, as I read further down in the thread, the FAA memo specifically states that posting a video does not make it a commercial flight (I'm paraphrasing but I'm sure you've seen it too. May want to show it to Traverse if they haven't seen it).

Also since numerous posters on this thread have disagreed with this it may not be such common sense.

 

[Kcobello]

COMMON SENSE and SAFETY rule the day...be safe, fly smart

Thats how we do it.

 

[Kcobello]

My personal opinion is that your attorneys are taking an arbitrary and overly restrictive interpretation. They are entitled to their opinion too of course. But they can also be wrong. Esp. since I doubt the issue has ever been adjudicated in that way. Such an adjudication would be more definitive.

Also, as I read further down in the thread, the FAA memo specifically states that posting a video does not make it a commercial flight (I'm paraphrasing but I'm sure you've seen it too. May want to show it to Traverse if they haven't seen it).

Also since numerous posters on this thread have disagreed with this it may not be such common sense.

Anything seems to be able to be "bent" the way an entity wants it to be understood. I am not going to tell Traverse Legal how to do their job. The advice we received was if it can generate monies it can be considered commercial. We will follow that, you and all the other opinionaters can follow what you believe is right.

 

[GringoLoco]

There's also a difference between a business and a private individual posting video to Facebook. A business posting definitely increases exposure to their company and would be considered commercial. If I post video to my Facebook or my non-monitized YouTube there's no reasonable way for that to be considered commercial. I don't care if YouTube generates click revenue on their own, if I don't get paid I'm not engaging in commerce. If a company uses that video for free it's on them, not me, even if I give permission.

That said, I'm not talking about people claiming hobby to skirt the rules and hook up a friend's business. That's clearly commercial intent. I'm talking about video I would have shot for myself anyway, and I allow anyone to use it. I forget what it's called, but as a creator you set your own level of permitted use on your images. I have many images that I released to be freely used by anyone. I believe any business can legally download and use them even though I'm not being paid. There are entire websites for businesses to get free images to use, I believe the people providing the photos can be random unpaid amateurs.

 

[Kcobello]

Didnt this start out as a Flying over people thread? Whats the opinion of that from the unlicensed/licensed people?

 

[Kcobello]

There's also a difference between a business and a private individual posting video to Facebook. A business posting definitely increases exposure to their company and would be considered commercial. If I post video to my Facebook or my non-monitized YouTube there's no reasonable way for that to be considered commercial. I don't care if YouTube generates click revenue on their own, if I don't get paid I'm not engaging in commerce. If a company uses that video for free it's on them, not me, even if I give permission.

That said, I'm not talking about people claiming hobby to skirt the rules and hook up a friend's business. That's clearly commercial intent. I'm talking about video I would have shot for myself anyway, and I allow anyone to use it. I forget what it's called, but as a creator you set your own level of permitted use on your images. I have many images that I released to be freely used by anyone. I believe any business can legally download and use them even though I'm not being paid. There are entire websites for businesses to get free images to use, I believe the people providing the photos can be random unpaid amateurs.

I really cant disagree on this other than the original question from the initial poster was more about being compensated for his work I thought. Which I give him credit for asking because we know their is people that don't even bother doing that. If anyone has time that likes to see commercial/non commmercial operations in something other than drone imaging, look up the Town Of Cambria NY and their SunFlower Farm. You will get a sense of understanding why entities need to be licensed, certified, zoned or whatever. A nice little Sunflower Farm is getting a cease and desist because of doing more commercially in a residential area.

 

[bsartist]

I really cant disagree on this other than the original question from the initial poster was more about being compensated for his work I thought. Which I give him credit for asking because we know their is people that don't even bother doing that. If anyone has time that likes to see commercial/non commmercial operations in something other than drone imaging, look up the Town Of Cambria NY and their SunFlower Farm. You will get a sense of understanding why entities need to be licensed, certified, zoned or whatever. A nice little Sunflower Farm is getting a cease and desist because of doing more commercially in a residential area.

Yes. I agree that, with respect to the initial question, my sense is that it would be a non hobby flight under part 107 and should have a waiver for flying over non-operational personnel.

My objection was just to the follow up assertion that any hobbyist posting aerial vids to YouTube for enjoyment was suddenly a non-hobbyist.

 

[bsartist]

There's also a difference between a business and a private individual posting video to Facebook. A business posting definitely increases exposure to their company and would be considered commercial. If I post video to my Facebook or my non-monitized YouTube there's no reasonable way for that to be considered commercial. I don't care if YouTube generates click revenue on their own, if I don't get paid I'm not engaging in commerce. If a company uses that video for free it's on them, not me, even if I give permission.

That said, I'm not talking about people claiming hobby to skirt the rules and hook up a friend's business. That's clearly commercial intent. I'm talking about video I would have shot for myself anyway, and I allow anyone to use it. I forget what it's called, but as a creator you set your own level of permitted use on your images. I have many images that I released to be freely used by anyone. I believe any business can legally download and use them even though I'm not being paid. There are entire websites for businesses to get free images to use, I believe the people providing the photos can be random unpaid amateurs.

Agree with everything here. Spot on.

 

[bsartist]

Yes. I agree that, with respect to the initial question, my sense is that it would be a non hobby flight under part 107 and should have a waiver for flying over non-operational personnel.

My objection was just to the follow up assertion that any hobbyist posting aerial vids to YouTube for enjoyment was suddenly a non-hobbyist.

I need to correct myself. I realized after I sent this that flying over people is one waiver you can’t get.

 

[Kcobello]

I need to correct myself. I realized after I sent this that flying over people is one waiver you can’t get.

It’s not easy but there is a waiver for this I was told.

 

[bsartist]

It’s not easy but there is a waiver for this I was told.

Oh. You’re right.

CNN Receives Breakthrough Part 107 Waiver for Operations Over People

 

[neggy]

and to date CNN is the ONLY holder of that waiver I am aware of

 

[Kcobello]

I would rather have the other available waivers than a overhead flight waiver. Not a whole lot of benefit but still could be a whole lot of heartache IF you crashed into someone.

 

[Mossiback]

Didnt this start out as a Flying over people thread? Whats the opinion of that from the unlicensed/licensed people?

Nice try getting back on topic. Way back on post #9 the OP stated that he was not going to do it and he hasn't posted since. By the way, my vote was to not do it.

 

[Kcobello]

I understand. You know you hope people don’t get discouraged in this field. I have giving up or passed on work to Aerial companies our way because I thought they would do a better job. One was a Hydroplane race that required 24 fights to officiate the corners. We didn’t have the battery capacity for 2 days of this and I am getting worn down a little. The company was appreciative and gave us a finders fee. I felt good because I gave some younger better people a chance, and they knocked it out of the park.