Legality of selling photos taken by drone of privately-owned structures

[Ty Pilot]

I just don’t see the apples to apples difference.. drone photo sold needs part 107, from a aircraft out the door/window still sold the same image, no part 107…

That's not really an Apple's to Apple's difference. In your scenario; on one hand you are the pilot of an aircraft (albeit unmanned) operating in the NAS - and on the other hand you aren't - you're a passenger onboard a manned aircraft without any responsibility for the flight. I would say that is as Apples-to-Oranges as you can get.

Another way to look at it this - Say for instance, instead of chartering an aircraft; you want to fly over your house yourself and take that picture. In order to do so you will have to go through a pilot certification process that is far more in depth than getting a 107 certification.

 

[Dougcjohn]

That's not really an Apple's to Apple's difference. In your scenario; on one hand you are the pilot of an aircraft (albeit unmanned) operating in the NAS - and on the other hand you aren't - you're a passenger onboard a manned aircraft without any responsibility for the flight. I would say that is as Apples-to-Oranges as you can get.

Another way to look at it this - Say for instance, instead of chartering an aircraft; you want to fly over your house yourself and take that picture. In order to do so you will have to go through a pilot certification process that is far more in depth than getting a 107 certification.

Hey Ty, not that it relates to thread… more on your aircraft over home comment... brings back a memory. My Uncle was a UH1B Gunship, then later Cobra Commander… did 7 tours VN… loved the flying & fights. Whenever he came home on R&R.... He & Aunt would buzz up to Midwest in a Twin and circle the house with wingtips close… waving & eyeball close… Before cell phones, his way of telling us they arrived. He was a talented one, highly respected by his teams… but rules weren’t always highest priority.

 

[Meta4]

if it can be seen by the public is can be used in art. it can not be used in commercial usage.

Why not?

 

[Meta4]

I just don’t see the apples to apples difference.. drone photo sold needs part 107, from a aircraft out the door/window still sold the same image, no part 107…

That's because the FAA has no rules about photos or selling photos.
They have rules about flight and commercial flight.

 

[Dpixtion]

That's not really an Apple's to Apple's difference. In your scenario; on one hand you are the pilot of an aircraft (albeit unmanned) operating in the NAS - and on the other hand you aren't - you're a passenger onboard a manned aircraft without any responsibility for the flight. I would say that is as Apples-to-Oranges as you can get.

Another way to look at it this - Say for instance, instead of chartering an aircraft; you want to fly over your house yourself and take that picture. In order to do so you will have to go through a pilot certification process that is far more in depth than getting a 107 certification.

I kind of get what you’re saying about apples to oranges but my confusion still lies if I am up to 150 feet take a panoramic photograph under recreational Flying and I decide that the photographs good and I want to sell it by FAA law I can’t because I don’t have a part 107 whereas if I’m a passenger on a plane and I take a picture and it turns out good and I wanna sell it that’s OK it doesn’t make sense why as a recreational pilot if I want to sell photograph that was took by a drone I can’t.
Are you or the FAA implying that because I’m behind the controls of a drone press a button to have it take a photograph I have now been so distracted as a recreational pilot that I need a partner southern license to fly?

I hope this makes more sense not trying to open a can of worms just curious.

 

[BigAl07]

I kind of get what you’re saying about apples to oranges but my confusion still lies if I am up to 150 feet take a panoramic photograph under recreational Flying and I decide that the photographs good and I want to sell it by FAA law I can’t because I don’t have a part 107 whereas if I’m a passenger on a plane and I take a picture and it turns out good and I wanna sell it that’s OK it doesn’t make sense why as a recreational pilot if I want to sell photograph that was took by a drone I can’t.
Are you or the FAA implying that because I’m behind the controls of a drone press a button to have it take a photograph I have now been so distracted as a recreational pilot that I need a partner southern license to fly?

I hope this makes more sense not trying to open a can of worms just curious.

If you take the image for RECREATION and then later determine it has value you CAN sell it... but if you go up with the intention of grabbing a PANO that, if it turns out good to sell then it's not RECREATION.

Taking of the picture isn't what's in question... it's the REASON/INTENT of the flight. Are you flying purely for Recreation or are you trying to find a loop hole to get out of having Part 107???

 

[Dpixtion]

BigA107. Thank you.
yes, I just started taking the part 107 class from pilot institute last week.

 

[DavidLee]

Why not?

you do have a right to keep your personal house, your image and any other property you own. before i entered the service i worked for a commercial photographer

 

[Meta4]

you do have a right to keep your personal house, your image and any other property you own. before i entered the service i worked for a commercial photographer

You said: if it can be seen by the public is can be used in art. it can not be used in commercial usage.
That's overly simplistic and gives an incorrect impression, or perhaps it was just poorly worded.
There are many things that can be seen by the public that images of can be commercially used.

 

[DavidLee]

read and get educated

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/property-release.html

almost or stock use these guidelines. commercial means adverstising.

art is an expressionary position, you art is not promoting a good or service.

 

[GeorgiaFlash]

As a photographer I can say that most responses have it mostly right. The FAA gives you the OK to take the photo but not the permission to sell the photo. Only the property owner can give you that permission. A house, a building, a mall, etc. are all privately owned property and you need their permission in the form of a property release to sell photos of their property.

To reiterate, the FAA gives you permission to take the photo for commercial purposes as a drone pilot but ONLY the property owner can give you permission to sell the photo.

Selling photos of other people's property is opening yourself up for lawsuits. Always get a property release before selling photos of property. Same goes for selling photos of people you need a model release.

 

[Meta4]

read and get educated

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/property-release.html

almost or stock use these guidelines. commercial means adverstising.

art is an expressionary position, you art is not promoting a good or service.

You could have explained that originally.
To most readers here the words art and commercial have a different meaning

 

[Brojon]

Privacy laws differ from state to state so you may want to check those in your state of operation first. When it comes to 'homes' - privacy law has a lot to say about what you can and cannot do with a camera regardless of whether it is in the air or on the ground. But as far as buildings or structures in public areas - these becomes far less protected under privacy laws. Your best best is to contact an attorney.

Sorry, privacy laws as per property does not change individual rights. If you can see it from public access there is no presumption or expectation of privacy.
Texas has a law that prohibits "surveilling" but the intent was to prevent PETA and wannabe animal activists from taking images of animal conditions - e.g. protect Big Ag.
Chicago tried to argue copyright and privacy laws with the famous public sculpture "The Bean". They failed. Then they tried to extort photographer fees. They failed. Now anyone can take images of the Bean without fear of legal beagles and overzealous public officials.

The Bean (Cloud Gate) in Chicago | Choose Chicago

Update: “The Bean” is back! The city recently completed renovations to enhance the visitor experience and improve accessibility to the surrounding plaza. Public access and…

www.choosechicago.com

 

[Brojon]

As a photographer I can say that most responses have it mostly right. The FAA gives you the OK to take the photo but not the permission to sell the photo. Only the property owner can give you that permission. A house, a building, a mall, etc. are all privately owned property and you need their permission in the form of a property release to sell photos of their property.

To reiterate, the FAA gives you permission to take the photo for commercial purposes as a drone pilot but ONLY the property owner can give you permission to sell the photo.

Selling photos of other people's property is opening yourself up for lawsuits. Always get a property release before selling photos of property. Same goes for selling photos of people you need a model release.

No true at all. That's only true for advertising purposes as is the same for public figures or any copyrighted work.
I've never understood the distinction of selling as art vs selling to advertise but it is there.

 

[GeorgiaFlash]

No true at all. That's only true for advertising purposes as is the same for public figures or any copyrighted work.
I've never understood the distinction of selling as art vs selling to advertise but it is there.

Wrong, advertising is not the only reason one needs a model/property release. If I take a photo of your house and use it in a movie I need a release. People in this forum are great at drone laws but I suggest you join a photographer forum for photography laws and rules. If I sell you a photo of a property to hang on your living room wall a release is not needed but the OP was going to make post cards or something, then a release would be advised.

 

[Ty Pilot]

I kind of get what you’re saying about apples to oranges but my confusion still lies if I am up to 150 feet take a panoramic photograph under recreational Flying and I decide that the photographs good and I want to sell it by FAA law I can’t because I don’t have a part 107 whereas if I’m a passenger on a plane and I take a picture and it turns out good and I wanna sell it that’s OK it doesn’t make sense why as a recreational pilot if I want to sell photograph that was took by a drone I can’t.
Are you or the FAA implying that because I’m behind the controls of a drone press a button to have it take a photograph I have now been so distracted as a recreational pilot that I need a partner southern license to fly?

I hope this makes more sense not trying to open a can of worms just curious.

I am not implying that you are distracted by taking a picture and I don't think the FAA does either.

Its not about the picture taking, it is about who is flying the aircraft. In your example (passenger on a plane being piloted by someone else, or a drone pilot alone), both pilots must have a certification to get that picture. And to me, that makes perfect sense.

Currently there are just over 269,000 certified 107 commercial UAV pilots here in the US. How would the FAA know precisely how much or how little flying each of these pilots do? How would they know where each of these pilots intend to fly to earn their commercial living? And if they don't know the answer to these and many, many, more questions about how different individuals are going to use their drones, then they would need to put in place a regulatory structure that would encompass all uses of commercial unmanned aviation.

Getting certified as a 107 tells the FAA that a given pilot has studied, tested and passed a knowledge test that allows them to ply their trade (in your example, taking a panorama) and will/should operate at any time, in any situation or any conditions safely and according to guidelines that have been standardized.

 

[DavidLee]

Why not?

because using your house implies that you are approving of that product or service. When i had my roof done on my house, part of the contract was to have the capacity to use my house in their advertisements. there was a check box to opt out. i used that becuause i did not want my house platered on the junk mail they send out

 

[Brojon]

Wrong, advertising is not the only reason one needs a model/property release. If I take a photo of your house and use it in a movie I need a release. People in this forum are great at drone laws but I suggest you join a photographer forum for photography laws and rules. If I sell you a photo of a property to hang on your living room wall a release is not needed but the OP was going to make post cards or something, then a release would be advised.

So all the movies with scenes in neighborhoods and city streets require a model release for all the buildings in the movie?
I think not. Inside is another story - since it is private.
I AM on several photography forums and have run into these issues as a photographer.

 

[DavidLee]

So all the movies with scenes in neighborhoods and city streets require a model release for all the buildings in the movie?
I think not. Inside is another story - since it is private.
I AM on several photography forums and have run into these issues as a photographer.

when it is a neighborhood and not one house no property release is required. when a single house or property is used a property release is required.

 

[Heavydpj]

I am planning on selling greeting cards using some photos that I’ve taken by drone and am unclear on the legality of selling cards with images that show privately owned structures (mostly barns). My online research shows that it is perfectly legal to take photos of privately owned structures—both from the ground and in the air—while on public property (e.g., streets and roads), but I cannot find a definitive answer about whether I can sell the images. The most pointed advice I’ve seen online is that photos of privately owned structures cannot be used “for commercial purposes” such as in ads or brochures. (My purpose is to generate net profits to donate in full to local environmental and charitable organizations.

I'm going to leave the Part 107 discussion out of this, as it's not relevant. You want to know if you can sell a photo of someone else's house.

Yes, you are right. You CAN take photos of whatever you want from a public place. You can also post those picture on a Facebook page, or blog.

HOWEVER, you are also correct in noting at SELLING the images (i.e. making a profit) is a different matter entirely. Generally if you are using an image of a person or recognizable structure for profit (i.e. commercial purpose), it will require a release. Using anyone’s image (to include their property) for commercial purposes violates that person’s right to publicity. You could be liable for damages, including punitive damages. In some states, these rights survive for up to 75 years after a person’s death.

The line between non-commercial and commercial can be fuzzy. Posting an image on a blog or social media site that is informative and editorial is probably not commercial. However, using an image on a greeting card that you sell is most definitely commercial.

I would consult with an attorney.