Giving footage to company for free

[Squamer]

I would not depend on every person within the FAA to know everything correctly or interpret it correctly... At the CES show I stopped by the FAA booth (right across from DJI and YNEC hahaha) and the guy I talked to was not very knowledgeable to say the least.

I 100% agree. Lol which is why I want someone to point me to where it says that in writing.

 

[SteelFlyer]

Is it written anywhere?? Someone point me there please. I spoke with a few people at the FAA and said it would be fine but we all know an individuals interpretation is a problem. Looking for facts, and objective evidence of said fact as I don't feel like getting in trouble.

This is from FAA's published "Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft" which can be found here:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

Any operation not conducted strictly for hobby or recreation purposes could not be operated under the special rule for model aircraft. Clearly, commercial operations would not be hobby or recreation flights. Likewise, flights that are in furtherance of a business, or incidental to a person’s business, would not be a hobby or recreation flight.

 

[m0j0]

If you didn't get paid it's not considered commercial.

Wrong

 

[Deer_Predator]

Under one of the FAQ's from http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/frequently-asked-questions/ there was a question that arose similar to this situation...
Q: I flew my drone for fun but ended up taking a photograph that I was able to sell later. Is this acceptable?

A: Yes, as long as the original intent of the flight was for fun.

 

[tcope]

Under one of the FAQ's from http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/frequently-asked-questions/ there was a question that arose similar to this situation...
Q: I flew my drone for fun but ended up taking a photograph that I was able to sell later. Is this acceptable?

A: Yes, as long as the original intent of the flight was for fun.

FINALLY! Thank you for posting this information so I don't need to post again on this same subject.

Edit: However, that site is not run by the FAA. It's an independent site.

Well....

The FAA regulates airspace and what happens in that airspace. If something happens later on upon the ground it does not change/alter what took place in the air prior to that.

If you fly for hobby use... it's hobby use. If you had no intent to use the drone flight for anything other than hobby use at the time, it's hobby use even if something changes later on.

Now, some people will think... hey, I'll just say I'm flying for fun but really I know I'll be making a buck but it's how I can work around the FAA's system. To those people I say, good luck. I hope that works out for you. But if it's obvious that you knew you'd be looking to make a buck, the FAA may come after you. By that time you will probably have hundreds of violations.

 

[Deer_Predator]

FINALLY! Thank you for posting this information so I don't need to post again on this same subject.

Edit: However, that site is not run by the FAA. It's an independent site.

Well....

The FAA regulates airspace and what happens in that airspace. If something happens later on upon the ground it does not change/alter what took place in the air prior to that.

If you fly for hobby use... it's hobby use. If you had no intent to use the drone flight for anything other than hobby use at the time, it's hobby use even if something changes later on.

Now, some people will think... hey, I'll just say I'm flying for fun but really I know I'll be making a buck but it's how I can work around the FAA's system. To those people I say, good luck. I hope that works out for you. But if it's obvious that you knew you'd be looking to make a buck, the FAA may come after you. By that time you will probably have hundreds of violations.

Correct they are an Independent site but they are partnered with the FAA......

Know Before You Fly is an education campaign founded by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) and the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) in partnership with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to educate prospective users about the safe and responsible operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).

I sent the FAA a question about flying at night and they actually quoted the AMA in their response to me... I would say they are legit

 

[vashon100]

Doesn't this mean that every YouTube quad reviewer (you know the popular ones) are illegal if they don't have the commercial license? Also their free quads from GB and BG are compensation for flying/demonstrating. And I'll bet many of them don't have that license.

 

[tcope]

Doesn't this mean that every YouTube quad reviewer (you know the popular ones) are illegal if they don't have the commercial license? Also their free quads from GB and BG are compensation for flying/demonstrating. And I'll bet many of them don't have that license.

If they intended to post it on YT and turn on monetization, yes. However, the FAA has stated that they are not currently looking to go after these people. Which has pretty much been their position. They are looking for obvious companies that are in business to make money... not the guy selling a photo for $10. That does not mean it's legal or that the FAA won't go after those people.

 

[vashon100]

If they intended to post it on YT and turn on monetization, yes. However, the FAA has stated that they are not currently looking to go after these people. Which has pretty much been their position. They are looking for obvious companies that are in business to make money... not the guy selling a photo for $10. That does not mean it's legal or that the FAA won't go after those people.

Even w/o the YT monetization, they get probably more than $700 a month (my guess) in free quads to demo. FAA probably still considers that peanuts.

 

[Madd_cabbie]

The FAA has made this crystal clear. Any imagery from a drone that "furthers the interest of a business" is considered commercial regardless of whether or not the person was paid.

By this same logic we should all get 107 licenses if we load up any photo or video to social media because it could help DJI in sales by others seeing video shot. I've watched numerous videos on YouTube as well as web forums before I bought my phantom 3 or my mavic

 

[vashon100]

By this same logic we should all get 107 licenses if we load up any photo or video to social media because it could help DJI in sales by others seeing video shot. I've watched numerous videos on YouTube as well as web forums before I bought my phantom 3 or my mavic

If you turn yourself in, you may get a reduced sentence. LOL

 

[bwn2pwn]

By this same logic we should all get 107 licenses if we load up any photo or video to social media because it could help DJI in sales by others seeing video shot. I've watched numerous videos on YouTube as well as web forums before I bought my phantom 3 or my mavic

If you turn yourself in, you may get a reduced sentence. LOL

Laugh all you want - this statement has merit to it. However, rules are rules. If your turnover is small enough to fly under the radar of authorities, then you're lucky, but its probably not worth the risk then either.

 

[Kilrah]

By this same logic we should all get 107 licenses if we load up any photo or video to social media because it could help DJI in sales by others seeing video shot. I've watched numerous videos on YouTube as well as web forums before I bought my phantom 3 or my mavic

Completely different since there is no direct interest.
You can go fly for fun, film the building of [insert company here] and post it yourself along with other random stuff, you have no ties to said company and it is not your intention to promote it.
If you however give them the footage and they post it (or you make a video where they are the main subject and it can be seen it's not just for fun) it becomes an obvious promotional action.

 

[vashon100]

Laugh all you want - this statement has merit to it. However, rules are rules. If your turnover is small enough to fly under the radar of authorities, then you're lucky, but its probably not worth the risk then either.

Lighten up, I didn't disagree, just injecting humor. If you saw my previous post about YouTubers, you'd see I interpreted it similarly.