How source gets checked by FAA????

[RakeshJD]

Hiii,,,
Purely an academic discussion: Let's say I do not have Part 107 and I donate my works to someone (doesn't matter who). GoToMeeting IrfanView Town of Salem At some point, that someone decides to use my donation for a profit. How can/does the FAA go about determining the source of the material? If the someone forgets the source, honest or not, how would/could the FAA proceed?
Thanks,,...

 

[sar104]

I doubt anything would happen at all. The FAA is not concerned with tracking down the exact provenance of every aerial image that gets published. At the practical level their attention has been on advertised services or publication by non-certified pilots, either cases that they see themselves or that get reported to them.

 

[Deleted member 79533]

Hiii,,,
Purely an academic discussion: Let's say I do not have Part 107 and I donate my works to someone (doesn't matter who). At some point, that someone decides to use my donation for a profit. How can/does the FAA go about determining the source of the material? If the someone forgets the source, honest or not, how would/could the FAA proceed?
Thanks,,...

If you make an unconditional gift of owned and lawfully acquired property you lose control over it forever. What the donee does with it is out of your control and of no consequence to you, IMO.

 

[Meta4]

Purely an academic discussion: Let's say I do not have Part 107 and I donate my works to someone (doesn't matter who). At some point, that someone decides to use my donation for a profit. How can/does the FAA go about determining the source of the material? If the someone forgets the source, honest or not, how would/could the FAA proceed?

The FAA's business is aviation safety - they aren't aerial photo police.
The image in your hypothetical scenario would never come to the attention of the FAA and they wouldn't care if it did.
They have much more important matters to deal with and not enough resources to work with.

 

[ac0j]

The only thing you need to worry about is getting too good at Aerial photography, and you start selling a ton of work. Even then, ONLY if a part 107 guy with no photography skills and not selling as much as you finds out you are doing it. Then he will continuously try to get you in trouble with the FAA.

 

[packnrat]

as i read this.
if i post video or photos to the web, for NO money "favors" in return i am a hobbyist.
if anyone else takes and uses said for a profit it is not on me, i am still a hobbyist.
can one copy right (aka: water mark) said video, photos and still be a hobbyist?

 

[sar104]

as i read this.
if i post video or photos to the web, for NO money "favors" in return i am a hobbyist.
if anyone else takes and uses said for a profit it is not on me, i am still a hobbyist.
can one copy right (aka: water mark) said video, photos and still be a hobbyist?

One additional subtlety; you must not have taken the video or photos for the purpose of furthering a business, independent of whether they paid you. Otherwise correct - if someone else finds and uses your photos then that's not your responsibility. Copyright is not affected by hobby status - you still have that.

 

[packnrat]

Ok then as I had typed in. I am a hobbyist.
As I do not fly for money. Heck not even a soda.

 

[AMann]

If you are worried about donating photos you only took for fun without trying to help a specific business to interested parties, just post them on Flickr or instagram or another free social media account that is your personal one (not a business acct), make them publicly available and don’t copyright them. You can give the interested party the URL to your general photo album and tell them they can find rhe one they like there and download it themselves. Keep the album public as an example of your hobby. But as mentioned above, if you are flying to take photos even for free of a business to help them out, you need a license to cover it.

 

[packnrat]

Not at all. Just do not like running afoul of runaway overbearing, unaccountable, government employees.
Now if we could sue them for false charges or harassment. Then they would be held accountable
Some out there will file false charges just to further there career. Some out of simple spite.
Aka:last guy beat him in court. So has to take it out on another person. Or they just hate drones.

I love my country.
But fear the political arm of the government.

 

[AMann]

Not at all. Just do not like running afoul of runaway overbearing, unaccountable, government employees.
Now if we could sue them for false charges or harassment. Then they would be held accountable
Some out there will file false charges just to further there career. Some out of simple spite.
Aka:last guy beat him in court. So has to take it out on another person. Or they just hate drones.

I love my country.
But fear the political arm of the government.

Wont get into politics here, but certainly, its not worth the expense and time going to court over it! Following the rules is much easier and much less worrisome...

 

[Meta4]

can one copy right (aka: water mark) said video, photos and still be a hobbyist?

A watermark is not copyright.
If you created the images, you own the copyright to those images - until you choose to sell the full ownership of the images to a 3rd party.
And if you are creating images so good that others would want them, don't give them away.

 

[AMann]

A watermark is not copyright.
If you created the images, you own the copyright to those images - until you choose to sell the full ownership of the images to a 3rd party.
And if you are creating images so good that others would want them, don't give them away.

I had copyrighted stuff I shot on land with a copyright logo stollen off Flickr before- made some good money settling with the company owner that used it. But I give photos away to groups with the right cause a lot. Even so, it would violate 107 if I went out knowing that I was shooting for a group to help their cause, business or mission wether I donated them or not.

 

[Meta4]

I had copyrighted stuff I shot on land with a copyright logo stollen off Flickr before- made some good money settling with the company owner that used it. But I give photos away to groups with the right cause a lot. Even so, it would violate 107 if I went out knowing that I was shooting for a group to help their cause, business or mission wether I donated them or not.

Sorry but putting a watermark on an image does not copyright the image.
The image is copyrighted the second you take the photo and you own that copyright whether you watermark the image or not.
Watermarks have nothing to do with copyright.

 

[AMann]

Sorry but putting a watermark on an image does not copyright the image.
The image is copyrighted the second you take the photo and you own that copyright whether you watermark the image or not.
Watermarks have nothing to do with copyright.

Yes, you are right. Putting one’s name, a (c) and the date is not a copyright, its merely a notice of who the copyright owner is and the year it was made. To fully protect one’s work so that they may seek financial reimbursement for lost work due to infringement, the artist also needs to register their copyright with the US copyright office. This way, the government will also represent your case in court. But that’s probably going way into the realms of turning it into a commercial venue as far as a 107 is concerned.

 

[packnrat]

I would not really care. Just as long as photo credit was giving to me. And not said to be there’s.
Other wise might be happy someone thought one of my photos was worth stealing...