Got a call from FAA today...do I really need my Part 107?

[zlek131]

Picture I just posted is way old but this screenshot is from now.
View attachment 144659
That make m

I think your history works against you in this case. If you were flying recreationally, took a photo or video with your drone, posted it your social media, and you later gave someone permission to publish your work for the first time, it’s easy to argue that the flight was originally intended as a recreational flight and therefore not subject to Part 107. However, if you have a documented history of having your work published by third parties, then the FAA reasonably assumes (based on the pattern of publication) that you intend to allow future work to be published and therefore the flights that produce those works are subject to Part 107. Intent is the driver here, and monetary gain alone is not what determines whether or not a flight falls under Part 107 rules. Taking photos/videos for the benefit of anyone other than yourself, regardless of whether or not you are compensated for your work, is a Part 107 operation.

Thank you for your feedback.

 

[zlek131]

The rules state that anything involving commercial interest requires a pilots license. Everyone has pretty much stated that. What is disagreed upon is what is commercial.
I was told in my FAA training (I believe it was the downloaded manual) that even posting online to facebook is commercial as facebook makes money. If it's on a newscast or even the National Weather Service, which I do for them. It's all commercial even if I am not getting paid. I don't agree with it, but I abide by it.

Thank you for your feedback. Bottom line is get the 107 and all these gray questions go away.

 

[zlek131]

Hi, not being negative, but knowing the regs would mean that you are aware the “recreational” boundary has been crossed. The exchange of $ does not define that boundary. Take the exam.

Will be taking the exam for sure. Thanks for your feedback.

 

[BigAl07]

The rules state that anything involving commercial interest requires a pilots license. Everyone has pretty much stated that. What is disagreed upon is what is commercial.
I was told in my FAA training (I believe it was the downloaded manual) that even posting online to facebook is commercial as facebook makes money. If it's on a newscast or even the National Weather Service, which I do for them. It's all commercial even if I am not getting paid. I don't agree with it, but I abide by it.

That's a bit too much of a stretch. It's the INTENT of the flight not what they do with the "DATA" collected. If your intent of the flight is to gather DATA that will be used to further a business, benefit someone else, or to produce income then it's PART 107.

Merely posting on your "Personal" FB page is not an absolute default to Part 107.

Now if you're posting it to your WORK FB page and the intent was to do that, then you have a whole other can of worms.

Posting to FB is not a default to Part 107.

 

[zlek131]

Thank you everyone for all the great feedback. As part of my 107 studies, I should have focused more on the what is considered recreational versus non-recreational flight. The justification of not charging and/or accepting any kind of payment/reward for my photographs, and at the same time allowing others to use the photographs "commercially" is clearly an incorrect one when it comes to recreational flights. As I mentioned earlier, I will go ahead and proceed with the 107 certification. Thanks again everyone!

 

[BigAl07]

Thank you everyone for all the great feedback. As part of my 107 studies, I should have focused more on the what is considered recreational versus non-recreational flight. The justification of not charging and/or accepting any kind of payment/reword for my photographs, and at the same time allowing others to use the photographs "commercially" is clearly an incorrect one when it comes to recreational flights. As I mentioned in earlier, I will go ahead and proceed with the 107 certification. Thanks again everyone!

Very well stated.

KUDOS to you for admitting the errors and doing what is needed to become legal/compliant.

For ANYONE reading this thread be sure to read Post #45 BEFORE commenting any further!!

 

[orionshooter]

Yep

You cannot be prosecuted or charged with conduct which occurs completely outside of your control. What a downstream user does with your recreational and wholly uncompensated efforts is exactly that - completely out of your control. You won’t be the first person a regulatory agency will attempt to bully by using impossibly vague and over broad definitions of common terms. Notice how many times they use the permissive term “may” which simply gives them the appearance of power without any true legal standing whatsoever.


Wade L said: “Taking photos/videos for the benefit of anyone other than yourself, regardless of whether or not you are compensated for your work, is a Part 107 operation.”

I’m not clear as to the source of this statement quoted above. Is it merely an interpretation or a direct quote from a statutory source? Regardless of its pedigree, the implication is that the term “benefit” is so impossibly broad that if taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean allowing my wife and children to enjoy my videography would make me non compliant since they are someone “other than myself”. This is complete horse s**t. Not even the most tortured definition of the term “benefit” could be applied to the conduct described here. Look up the legal terms, “void for vagueness,” “over breadth,” and “strict construction” to get an idea of how courts define statutory language.

I wholeheartedly agree with those who have suggested getting your 107 as a way to avoid the confrontation and potential legal fees. However, in my retired lawyer brain and based on the fact pattern presented, this is an overreach by the FAA if they are doing anything more than just suggesting you do so.

Fly safe

 

[racervt911]

On the FAA website there is a “User Identification Tool” to help determine if you need a Part 107 Certificate.

User Identification Tool

www.faa.gov

Hope this helps!

 

[zlek131]

On the FAA website there is a “User Identification Tool” to help determine if you need a Part 107 Certificate.

User Identification Tool

www.faa.gov

Hope this helps!

A bit misleading if you go purely by the 5 questions/answers below. But if you click on the recreational flyers link in the last box you will get more information such as "...Non-recreational purposes include things like taking photos to help sell a property or service, roof inspections,..." which in my case one could interpret that the local news channel was featuring my photos which could have attracted more audience to their broadcast, hence help them increase viewership, hence make them more money. Also reading further, the best advise offered by the link is "When in doubt, fly under Part 107" Now, what if my photos were just plain ugly and the news station was actually using them to purposely bankrupt themselves....?

 

[spsphotos]

Sigh. I see this topic pop up ALL the time with tons of incorrect information being passed about.

1) Flying recreationally means that AT THE TIME OF YOUR FLIGHT you have no INTENTION of sharing any images you capture on any social media platform, commercial application, TV news, gifts to friends, or anywhere else the images might be publically seen you are OK.

2) Any INTENT of sharing the images nullifies your recreational flyer status. This also includes anything else that you might benefit directly/indirectly from like inspecting your roof or fence line, etc.

2) If after the flight, say a couple of days later you notice something newsworthy that someone might find interesting, you CAN share it, sell it, etc.

The key here is INTENT at the time of flight. The FAA would be hard-pressed though to prove intent which is why this is such a grey area. THey really need to get more specific on this subject...too much left to interpretation.

 

[racervt911]

I also remember the term “for the betterment of a business” somewhere in my Part 107 studying materials, (but I can’t recall where). From this I understand that even if someone else would use your drone photos/videos for their own YouTube channel, you would have to be Part 107 certified because it would be for the betterment of a business.

 

[BigAl07]

Sigh. I see this topic pop up ALL the time with tons of incorrect information being passed about.

1) Flying recreationally means that AT THE TIME OF YOUR FLIGHT you have no INTENTION of sharing any images you capture on any social media platform, commercial application, TV news, gifts to friends, or anywhere else the images might be publically seen you are OK.

2) Any INTENT of sharing the images nullifies your recreational flyer status. This also includes anything else that you might benefit directly/indirectly from like inspecting your roof or fence line, etc.

2) If after the flight, say a couple of days later you notice something newsworthy that someone might find interesting, you CAN share it, sell it, etc.

The key here is INTENT at the time of flight. The FAA would be hard-pressed though to prove intent which is why this is such a grey area. THey really need to get more specific on this subject...too much left to interpretation.

I take exception to one main point above....
"
1) Flying recreationally means that AT THE TIME OF YOUR FLIGHT you have no INTENTION of sharing any images you capture on any social media platform, commercial application, TV news, gifts to friends, or anywhere else the images might be publically seen you are OK.
"

Merely painting Social Media with that broad brush is incorrect or at least only correct sometimes. Even in the video you linked to above it states "Monetized" for YT shares.

If you are genuinely flying for Recreation you CAN share your DATA to a personal social media account that is NOT monetized. If it's a business Social Media account or if the account is Monetized then Part 107 is going to be absolutely required but not otherwise. A hobby operator CAN fly with the intent to create content to share on a personal SM page so long as it fits fully within ~44809. Facebook, Instagram, YouTube are not "automatic" disqualifiers of ~44809 but they CAN disqualify in some instances.

 

[Michael Ainsworth]

Reading all the above posts from USA, I am glad I am in Australia atm. We may be up for similar problems in the future but so far seem to have dodged this problem.

 

[Big Bro]

If you are genuinely flying for Recreation you CAN share your DATA to a personal social media account that is NOT monetized. If it's a business Social Media account or if the account is Monetized then Part 107 is going to be absolutely required but not otherwise. A hobby operator CAN fly with the intent to create content to share on a personal SM page so long as it fits fully within ~44809. Facebook, Instagram, YouTube are not "automatic" disqualifiers of ~44809 but they CAN disqualify in some instances.

I find this to be a little misleading as well. Even though I have not personally monetized my Youtube acccount, meaning I receive no financial compensation, there are occasionally ads displayed prior to the start of my drone videos (for example, ads for Pilot Institute). So, while I'm not directly benefiting or advancing a business interest, there are others that benefit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this would void my recreational exemption.

 

[BigAl07]

I find this to be a little misleading as well. Even though I have not personally monetized my Youtube acccount, meaning I receive no financial compensation, there are occasionally ads displayed prior to the start of my drone videos (for example, ads for Pilot Institute). So, while I'm not directly benefiting or advancing a business interest, there are others that benefit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this would void my recreational exemption.

Did you FLY the aircraft fully within ~44809? This means did you do anything "intentionally" to promote, further, represent, or help anyone else? If YES then the FLIGHT was legal under ~44809 and what happens after that isn't the problem/worry of the FAA.

Intent of the FLIGHT is the key factor.

 

[zlek131]

I find this to be a little misleading as well. Even though I have not personally monetized my Youtube acccount, meaning I receive no financial compensation, there are occasionally ads displayed prior to the start of my drone videos (for example, ads for Pilot Institute). So, while I'm not directly benefiting or advancing a business interest, there are others that benefit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this would void my recreational exemption.

Based on my new understanding, I believe the answer is: Yes, this would void your recreational exemption as others are benefiting or advancing their business interests from your videos.

 

[sar104]

I find this to be a little misleading as well. Even though I have not personally monetized my Youtube acccount, meaning I receive no financial compensation, there are occasionally ads displayed prior to the start of my drone videos (for example, ads for Pilot Institute). So, while I'm not directly benefiting or advancing a business interest, there are others that benefit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this would void my recreational exemption.

That doesn't matter. Just because you post a video on YT, or a photo on FB or elsewhere, that does not make it your intent to further those businesses. That would be a slippery slope. Next we will be arguing that because you used DJI equipment that you were furthering DJI business, or because you downloaded and processed the photo on your Mac that you were furthering Apple's business.

Now if you go out flying planning to capture video and images that you hope will be picked up and used by a news outlet or other business, then that arguably does change the intent of the flight. But just taking photos and images to share socially is just part of your photography/video hobby.

 

[sar104]

Based on my new understanding, I believe the answer is: Yes, this would void your recreational exemption as others are benefiting or advancing their business interests from your videos.

No that's wrong. For example, it would mean that anyone posting a photo or video to this forum would need a Part 107. I'm constantly amazed by the mental hoops that people go to in order to argue this in both directions.

 

[Big Bro]

Did you FLY the aircraft fully within ~44809? This means did you do anything "intentionally" to promote, further, represent, or help anyone else? If YES then the FLIGHT was legal under ~44809 and what happens after that isn't the problem/worry of the FAA.

Intent of the FLIGHT is the key factor.

I understand! Since there seems to be so much confusion on this point, I have to ask, don't you think the FAA could do a better job at defining recreational flight? Thanks for your replies.

 

[sar104]

I understand! Since there seems to be so much confusion on this point, I have to ask, don't you think the FAA could do a better job at defining recreational flight? Thanks for your replies.

That is a really good question. In my opinion they could, but they don't want to. And the reason is that the FAA has never wanted a recreational exception - that has always been imposed on them by Congress and the more vague it is, the more flexibility they have to enforce.