How do I stand legally....

[brett8883]

OR you could give it to a commercial certified friend who can sell it and take his 10% commission?

Either way is legal in the US. Again my understanding of UK law starts and ends with the research I did on this subject below that comment but by all appearances it would seem both ways are legal.

I’m sure passing it through an intermediary wouldn’t be make it legal if it wasn’t in the first place.

 

[wxperson]

But they don't .... although this topic always generates a lot of concern here in the forum, I don't think there's been a case of anyone being prosecuted for even blatant unlicensed commercial operation involving photography.

FAA, CAA .. all government agencies. If they don't step in or enforce... whats the concern?

 

[brett8883]

FAA, CAA .. all government agencies. If they don't step in or enforce... whats the concern?

Some of us may find this hard to believe but there are some people who just like to follow the law.

I get what you are saying though, why have a law that nobody cares enough to enforce? I completely agree with that.

 

[Ren57]

Now things have changed, I will clarify, I didn’t get asked or paid in any way to take the photo, a normal everyday drone flight taking photo while flying.

As has already been said. If your intention was not commercial (in other words, you just performed a recreational flight) and just happened to take some pictures that someone wants to buy, then there's no problem with you selling that content. The intention of the flight was not commercial. And the pictures belong to you. However, if your intention right from the start was to sell that content, then you'd need to hold a PFCO to sell it. So yes, you can sell them the pictures....

 

[Porky]

As has already been said. If your intention was not commercial (in other words, you just performed a recreational flight) and just happened to take some pictures that someone wants to buy, then there's no problem with you selling that content. The intention of the flight was not commercial. And the pictures belong to you. However, if your intention right from the start was to sell that content, then you'd need to hold a PFCO to sell it. So yes, you can sell them the pictures....

I’ve already sent it to the person in question “free of charge” I was just thrilled that someone took an interest in one of my photos? I only fly for my own pleasure, not to make gains as I stated in my other posts? nice feeling though??

 

[Porky]

How about selling expensive picture frames, and using your photos as pretty fillers for the frames? Wouldn’t that be permissible?

Like your way of thinking??

 

[dtp]

I recently completed my PfCO theory course and this topic was raised a few times, the wording goes 'if you were

Hi all,

I’ve just had an email about one of the photos I’ve taken, this person would love to buy it to hang in there club house. Now I’m not a CAA qualified pilot just a recreational flyer. I took the photo as i normally do with all my others, just for my own pleasure so can I sell it to them or do I just give it to them with my copy right logo on the photo.

Any guidance would be much appreciated.

Porky[emoji6][emoji6]

If recently completed the PfCO theory course and this subject was raised on more than one occasion. The CAA word it as "in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration.’'

If you gave it away then you should be fine however if let's say you put your name on it and from that you gained remuneration from someone else later then that would be classified as commercial work.

The same has happened to be a few times so hence taking the PfCO.

Hope that helps.

 

[Thomas B]

Why not just give them the photo?

 

[Porky]

Why not just give them the photo?

See my post #65 ?

 

[Spikey0321]

I recently completed my PfCO theory course and this topic was raised a few times, the wording goes 'if you were If recently completed the PfCO theory course and this subject was raised on more than one occasion. The CAA word it as "in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration.’'

If you gave it away then you should be fine however if let's say you put your name on it and from that you gained remuneration from someone else later then that would be classified as commercial work.

The same has happened to be a few times so hence taking the PfCO.

Hope that helps.

Having read through the CAA’s description of how commercial operations are defined I have to disagree, the term commercial refers to the flight and the flight alone. It was a recreational flight, end of, whatever is chosen to happen with the images after the event does not change the nature of the flight. If the OP had been asked to fly and take the pictures for money, then that would of course be commercial but that is not the case here.

Please refer to the examples shown the the CAA’s website

Commercial industry | Civil Aviation Authority

Ensuring the highest standards

www.caa.co.uk

 

[BaRoN30s]

i would have just explained that you dont do this as a living and its just for your own pleasure, so by all means they can have a copy for free with your logo/signature what ever it is you put on them and them and then say something along the lines " just get me a few beers or a drink out of it if you like it that much" result for everyone..

 

[Drgnfli]

Geez Porky, if you don't tell, I won't tell... I mean really, how many millions of dollars are you going to make on that picture? Geez, don't forget to inform the IRS too...

 

[Meta4]

How about selling expensive picture frames, and using your photos as pretty fillers for the frames? Wouldn’t that be permissible?

OR you could give it to a commercial certified friend who can sell it and take his 10% commission?

If the CAA or FAA were looking into your operations, I'm sure they would never see through such sophisticated strategies.
These are variations on the silly "flying for free, only charging for photo editing" strategy.
They would only make you look silly to clients and offer no legal protection at all.

I recently completed my PfCO theory course and this topic was raised a few times, the wording goes 'if you were If recently completed the PfCO theory course and this subject was raised on more than one occasion. The CAA word it as "in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration.’'

The thing that so many here are confused about is that the CAA/FAA etc don't look at the photo as commercial or recreational because they have no regulations about photos - just about flying.
In these cases they would be concerned about flying in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration.
The only test is .. was the flying done in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration.

If you gave it away then you should be fine however if let's say you put your name on it and from that you gained remuneration from someone else later then that would be classified as commercial work.

That idea gets this week's award for the most contrived scenario to suggest an innocent photo shot on a recreational flight might be viewed as commercial air work.

 

[Idrach]

Please accept my apology, it must only be the CAA PfCO that provides those Three marginal benefits.

No, PfCO does not. PfCO means that you have an approved Operating Safety Case, and allows you to apply for a "permission" for flights which would otherwise break the UK Dronecode.

3.5 A CAA permission only addresses the flight safety aspects of the flight operation and does not constitute permission to disregard the legitimate interests of other statutory bodies such as the Police and Emergency Services, the Highway Agency, Data Commission, Transport for London or local authorities.

3.6 (trimmed)

• Operators who intend to fly a Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft (SUSA) within the separation criteria of ANO 2009 Article 167(2) are required to apply for a permission from the CAA and must submit a safety case including a risk assessment of the operation.

I'd note that there have been more recent updates to the ANO, so the 6th Ed CAP may be being updated.

 

[hoggdoc]

Hey Porky-
Here is the US the FAA considers anything for profit requires a commercial license. Based on some interpretations that would even include posting it to your YouTube channel as it plays toward building your online presence and potentially a business gain. Your copyright could also be interpreted as a form of ownership meaning a possession having value and distribution would again be a form of establishing your brand. Either way the potentional trouble may not be worth it. Just to keep things on the up and up, be flattered by the request and provide the image free of charge with an honorable mention on the print. Keep on flying! JMHO

And this is what our world has come to! Sad isn't it?

 

[hoggdoc]

I agree with you in that if the safety of sky is their only concern then it shouldn’t matter if the flight has the intent of recreational or otherwise. There is no evidence I can see that a non-recreational flight is more dangerous than a recreational flight therefore requiring a license. That don’t make no sense!

I think this statement says it all. There are motives that involve more than safety for sure.

 

[Meta4]

Here is the US the FAA considers anything for profit requires a commercial license. Based on some interpretations that would even include posting it to your YouTube channel as it plays toward building your online presence and potentially a business gain. Your copyright could also be interpreted as a form of ownership meaning a possession having value and distribution would again be a form of establishing your brand. Either way the potentional trouble may not be worth it. Just to keep things on the up and up, be flattered by the request and provide the image free of charge with an honorable mention on the print. Keep on flying! JMHO

And this is what our world has come to! Sad isn't it?

It's what the state of misinformed forum discussion has come to.
What's sad is that all of this is incorrect as has been explained multiple times in this thread.

 

[Idrach]

I've managed to find the official UK position (I'm off work for the week and am procrastinating rather than marking Data Protection exams!)

Meaning of aerial work
259.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) and Part 34, aerial work means any purpose, other than commercial air transport or public transport, for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised for the flight or the purpose of the flight.

(2) If the only such valuable consideration consists of remuneration for the services of the pilot the flight is deemed to be a private flight for the purposes of Part 3 and Part 4.

(3) Aerial work consists of instruction or testing in a club environment if it consists of the giving of instruction in flying or the conducting of flying tests for the purposes of this Order in an aircraft owned by, operated by or operated under arrangements entered into by a flying club of which the person giving the instruction or conducting the test and the person receiving the instruction or undergoing the test are both members.

Therefore, the OPs position, with consideration being promised after a flight is over with no prior indication would take it, UK law, outside the "aerial work" definition and therefore not need a PfCO (that being the UK equivalent, sort of, of the 107.)

 

[BBZ149]

Just sell the Picture and donate the Money to Charity! Job done!!

 

[Kingram]

Can we see this Great picture ?