Is this worth discussing?

[JustDavid]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Ken Heron talks about hobbyists posting drone videos, and YouTube showing ads on those videos. Isn't this "in furtherance of a business"?

I'm the new guy here, so what are your thoughts?

 

[AMann]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Ken Heron talks about hobbyists posting drone videos, and YouTube showing ads on those videos. Isn't this "in furtherance of a business"?

I'm the new guy here, so what are your thoughts?

Uh, no comment about that guy... I don’t watch him. But in furtherance of a business? I think the jist is if the pilot is actively pursuing business with it, then yea- a hobby pilot could be breaking the law if he’s not 107 Certified. And if others are posting ads on his receeational work and he has no control over it on the internet, then no- he’s clearly not liable.

?Hey, we should be flying!

 

[Meta4]

Ken Heron talks about hobbyists posting drone videos, and YouTube showing ads on those videos. Isn't this "in furtherance of a business"?

There's a lot of misinformation in the discussion in that video. Forget it.
Just look at the top of the comments for that video and you see that he's posted an update from the FAA that clarifies the issue:

Some clarity from the FAA! I've been contacted by Kevin Morris from the 'FAA Safety Team' he offers this: If someone is flying a drone for recreational purposes and sharing their videos online for others to enjoy, they would be considered a recreational operation. Even if YouTube places advertising on the video which monetizes it. YouTube would also not be in violation of FAA regulations because they would not be considered an “operator”. Meaning, they did not cause (hire, ask, persuade, etc.) the channel owner to fly their drone.

NOW…If that same recreational flyer, taking the same video and posting to the same channel does so because they want to make money from YouTube advertising and thus their intent for flying is to make money from their YouTube channel, it would no longer be considered recreational and need to operate under Part 107. Similarly, if YouTube contacted the recreational flyer and asked them to post more videos because they are generating ad revenue, both the recreational flyer and YouTube could be in violation of FAA regulations.

 

[JustDavid]

Uh, no comment about that guy... I don’t watch him.

I don't normally watch his vids either, but it popped up in the Up Next in YouTube after I watched a Tony Northrup video about Study Guide for Part 107

And Meta4, thanks for the clarification

 

[AMann]

I don't normally watch his vids either, but it popped up in the Up Next in YouTube after I watched a Tony Northrup video about Study Guide for Part 107

And Meta4, thanks for the clarification

Tony Northrup got me through my 107 self-study sessions successfully too! Good luck with that and stop watching those other videos!

 

[Thomas B]

Regardless of anything else, Ken Herron is monetizing his business with topics like this to confuse the naive drone pilot... I also quit watching him a long time ago.

Should the FAA intervene on disposition of a drone operator’s images/vids, the determining factor, however convoluted it may get, is the rules flown under while shooting and the intent of the operator.

 

[BigAl07]

IMHO that youtube guy (I'm not going to give him the pleasure of even using his name) does more harm to our industry and is profiting by causing drama and conflict. I'm looking forward to the day he gets busted violating a FAR and gets spanked.

He's profiting with misinformation and half truths and his nonsense gets shared as valid information.

 

[theDRONEranger]

I too watched a little bit of that two days ago. Got bored and surfed till I found aYouTube about mating snails that seemed more interesting! JOKE! They tried to key on monetizing, thus making it illegal. I thought if one made a video for fun and posted it and maintained strict recreational purpose the whole way, it was good. Can’t control what others may due with/to it! Can we? Intent prior to flight and completed with posting on YouTube was 100% recreational!