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

[BigAl07]

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 nailed it!

Yes they COULD do better but it's always been that the FAA gives us just enough rope to hang ourselves. It's really more clear than most realize but it takes time to be able to see the forest through the trees and some simply refuse to see it so they can plead ignorance.

 

[zlek131]

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.

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.

OK, so in my case, I flew my drone and took a picture, with 100% intent as part of my personal photography enjoyment. When I got home I looked at the photograph and said to myself "wow, this is a really nice photo, good job!". Later that day I was watching the local news and saw "Send us your photos, we would love to show them on the air!" I then thought back to my nice photo from earlier that morning and decided to share it with the local news outlet, hey why not! The local news outlet shows the photo. Since the thought of submitting or sharing my photo with anyone never crossed my mind that morning, hence was not part of my intent whatsoever at the time of the flight, I think I should be OK as recreational operator. Now, going forward... my intent has changed somewhat based on my initial positive experience, as now my thought process is that I am going to fly the drone, take some pictures AND if I get a good one, I will share it with the local news outlet, given they really liked my initial photo. Because of my new intent, I am now considered a non-recreational operator as technically I am intending to "self promote" my good photo, and/or the news outlet can use my photo to commercially benefit themselves, RIGHT? At the end, it comes down to this "When in doubt, fly under Part 107" Last, as someone already stated, my history (multiple featured photos) is working against me here. Break over, back to my 107 refresher....

 

[sar104]

OK, so in my case, I flew my drone and took a picture, with 100% intent as part of my personal photography enjoyment. When I got home I looked at the photograph and said to myself "wow, this is a really nice photo, good job!". Later that day I was watching the local news and saw "Send us your photos, we would love to show them on the air!" I then thought back to my nice photo from earlier that morning and decided to share it with the local news outlet, hey why not! The local news outlet shows the photo. Since the thought of submitting or sharing my photo with anyone never crossed my mind that morning, hence was not part of my intent whatsoever at the time of the flight, I think I should be OK as recreational operator. Now, going forward... my intent has changed somewhat based on my initial positive experience, as now my thought process is that I am going to fly the drone, take some pictures AND if I get a good one, I will share it with the local news outlet, given they really liked my initial photo. Because of my new intent, I am now considered a non-recreational operator as technically I am intending to "self promote" my good photo, and/or the news outlet can use my photo to commercially benefit themselves, RIGHT? At the end, it comes down to this "When in doubt, fly under Part 107" Last, as someone already stated, my history (multiple featured photos) is working against me here. Break over, back to my 107 refresher....

I think that's a good summary, and there is no question that the best course of action is to get your Part 107. Then you can do whatever you want. Within the law, of course...

 

[RobW01]

Background: I am 100% recreational/hobbyist aerial photographer who has been flying for over 3 years now. I fly for the satisfaction of taking a photo rather than the joy of flying a drone. Although I don't have my part 107 certification, I am very knowledgeable of the laws/regulations and fly by the book, given I have studied for the test just haven't taken it at this point in time. I can say with 100% accuracy that I have not charged/billed/accepted any form of payment/reward for any of my work. At the same time my photos have been featured many times on local news, websites, social media and hopefully an upcoming publication - each time the photo being credited to my name and again, all 100% free of charge. I have also given numerous photos away (free of charge) to random people contacting me and wanting to print one of my images to hang it on their wall. I feature my photography hobby on my website/Instagram with a pure hobby disclaimer.

The call: Today I received a call from a local FAA office, asking me if I was 107 certified. Evidently someone has reported me to the FAA, my guess is someone local who is charging for their aerial photography and not appreciating the fact that I give mine away for free. It was a very friendly and honest phone conversation. After informing the FAA employee of what I sated above, I was advised that I will need to get my part 107 license in order to continue what I have been doing all along. I was told that even though I have not charged/made a single penny for any of my work and/or accepted any sort of reward/payment, "my name has received credit for it", especially that part where my photos were featured on local news with photo credit given to my name.

Question: Based on what I said above, do I really need to get my Part 107 certification? I am not going to argue with the FAA and I will get certified anyway, but wanted to get opinion from this forum as I know we have a lot of knowledgeable members here.

Thank you in advance! Matt

I’ve often wondered about the ramifications of posting videos on YouTube (for example). If your channel attracts advertising for YouTube, does this make you liable to claims of commercial benefit?

 

[Papa Beach]

Background: I am 100% recreational/hobbyist aerial photographer who has been flying for over 3 years now. I fly for the satisfaction of taking a photo rather than the joy of flying a drone. Although I don't have my part 107 certification, I am very knowledgeable of the laws/regulations and fly by the book, given I have studied for the test just haven't taken it at this point in time. I can say with 100% accuracy that I have not charged/billed/accepted any form of payment/reward for any of my work. At the same time my photos have been featured many times on local news, websites, social media and hopefully an upcoming publication - each time the photo being credited to my name and again, all 100% free of charge. I have also given numerous photos away (free of charge) to random people contacting me and wanting to print one of my images to hang it on their wall. I feature my photography hobby on my website/Instagram with a pure hobby disclaimer.

The call: Today I received a call from a local FAA office, asking me if I was 107 certified. Evidently someone has reported me to the FAA, my guess is someone local who is charging for their aerial photography and not appreciating the fact that I give mine away for free. It was a very friendly and honest phone conversation. After informing the FAA employee of what I sated above, I was advised that I will need to get my part 107 license in order to continue what I have been doing all along. I was told that even though I have not charged/made a single penny for any of my work and/or accepted any sort of reward/payment, "my name has received credit for it", especially that part where my photos were featured on local news with photo credit given to my name.

Question: Based on what I said above, do I really need to get my Part 107 certification? I am not going to argue with the FAA and I will get certified anyway, but wanted to get opinion from this forum as I know we have a lot of knowledgeable members here.

Thank you in advance! Matt

I don’t see how that is any different than if you gave away cellphone photos or videos which we see on news reports every day!

 

[snowghost]

I don’t see how that is any different than if you gave away cellphone photos or videos which we see on news reports every day!

Tell him the videos were made with a really, really long selfie stick.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

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.

CASA is always following FAA, and sure enough for recreational pilots the registration / pilot accreditation will come through sometime in the next year or so.
(Commercial registration came in for RePL and Excluded categories some time ago.)

I received a newsletter or two in the recent past, postponing recreational changes, we were supposed to be through that stage already, but covid delayed it at least once more.

Who knows, it might get pushed out much further yet, CASA are fairly busy I feel, and somewhat understaffed for taking on such a big project.

I have seen newsletter info also mentioning a new Flight Information Management System (FIMS), which is going to be like the US RID I'm sure.

Changes coming, how long away is the big question.

 

[gaspipe]

This thread intrigues me. IMHO, the FAA is doing exactly what the law has challenged them to do. As with all agencies, the IRS coming to mind first, there are more rules on the books than most citizens or gov't employees can ever be aware of.

My thought process leads me to all things we try to regulate. Drones are, and have been, a burr under the saddle since 9/11. I can understand the vulnerability and concern. Operating a kayak with a 1/2HP trawling motor requires registration.

To jump to the cutting room floor. Good guys generally will be and will remain compliant. Bad guys are not interested in the inconvenience of breaking a law, or rule. Their motivations lie elsewhere. Anyway, the law making process will continue as it always has. Those enthusiasts or commercial entities will endeavor to remain compliant. But it never will deter the bad guys. So I, at that point, ponder what has been ultimately achieved?

If we are safer to the general public, then I'm ok with it. When it is a knee jerk reaction to a feel good policy, I question why? It is more difficult now to obtain a Conductor Cert to switch freight cars on the railroad than it is to get a single engine land Private Pilot's license.

As horrible as this is to say, how long until we need an operators license for a pressure cooker? The gasoline pump at the Circle K?

Edit - tin foil hat off.... Lol.

 

[zlek131]

Tell him the videos were made with a really, really long selfie stick.

Cell phones don’t fly into FAA regulated air space…

 

[Lets Fly]

"Goodwill or other non-monetary value can also be considered indirect compensation."

And isn't that ridiculous. What's the world coming too, money and jealousy.

 

[BigAl07]

@zlek131 do you feel like you have a full understanding of the differences between ~44809 and Part 107 now and why Part 107 is required for the type of "work" you're doing?

 

[Vic Moss]

Thanks everyone for commenting here. Lots of good information.

And yes, under the rules of 44809, this was a 107 situation. It's nice to see that most posts here are correct. That means the FAA is getting the info out.

 

[sar104]

Thanks everyone for commenting here. Lots of good information.

And yes, under the rules of 44809, this was a 107 situation. It's nice to see that most posts here are correct. That means the FAA is getting the info out.

Can you elaborate on what you see that makes this 107? The only thing I see that possibly triggers 107 is that the OP has arguably come to expect requests to use the material, but it's not at all clear that even that disqualifies these as recreational flights.

 

[Vic Moss]

Can you elaborate on what you see that makes this 107? The only thing I see that possibly triggers 107 is that the OP has arguably come to expect requests to use the material, but it's not at all clear that even that disqualifies these as recreational flights.

The fact that there was other intentions rather than just recreational during the flight.

I discussed this with the OP on the phone. I can't share the conversation, but that's what it boils down to.

He agrees that these flights would qualify as 107.

 

[LoudThunder]

And isn't that ridiculous. What's the world coming too, money and jealousy.

And where would you draw the line between a Recreational Hobby and a Commercial Venture?

 

[Vic Moss]

And where would you draw the line between a Recreational Hobby and a Commercial Venture?

You draw it here: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml...lim-title49-section44809&num=0&edition=prelim

 

[agiorgitis]

If you get on the roof of your house and take a photo, you're good to go. If you flight a drone at the same altitude and take the same photo, you need a 107.
Not sure whether you need a 107 if you get on the roof and take a photo from the drone while holding it in hand!
Crazy days...

 

[BigAl07]

If you get on the roof of your house and take a photo, you're good to go. If you flight a drone at the same altitude and take the same photo, you need a 107.
Not sure whether you need a 107 if you get on the roof and take a photo from the drone while holding it in hand!
Crazy days...

Only if the FLIGHT is NOT purely Recreational!!

What are the Commercial Drone rules from Greece?

 

[MS Coast]

"If you get on the roof of your house and take a photo, you're good to go. If you flight a drone at the same altitude and take the same photo, you need a 107."

If you're not flying a drone, you don't need a drone license. Makes sense.

"Not sure whether you need a 107 if you get on the roof and take a photo from the drone while holding it in hand!"

If you're not flying that drone, you don't need a drone license. Right?

At least those two things about the rules seem straightforward. The rest was so confusing and there were so many different opinions that I finally decided that it was simpler and easier to just get the 107 ticket, even though I was just trying to give photos away rather than sell them.

 

[sar104]

If you get on the roof of your house and take a photo, you're good to go. If you flight a drone at the same altitude and take the same photo, you need a 107.
Not sure whether you need a 107 if you get on the roof and take a photo from the drone while holding it in hand!
Crazy days...

Right. If you climb to the top of a mountain and take a photo, no license required. If you fly your light aircraft up there to take the same photo you need a pilot license. Obviously it is crazy that you would need a pilot license just to take a photo. Does that sum up your attempt at a logical argument?