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

[DavidLee]

read this

Location Release Form: What Is It and Why Do You Need It? | Wedio

Did you find your perfect location? Great! Are you allowed to film there? You’ll first need a location release form. Learn the tips and tricks here.

academy.wedio.com

 

[LeadSledGirl]

Question to this: according to FAA I’d need a part 107 to make money from anything I do with a drone…. So I go up to 235’ AGL And take a photo for my self. It fine, if I sale it I’d need 107.. however if I charter a aircraft or helicopter and take the photo from the door. And sold the image, I do not need a part 107…

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…

You need the 107 because you are [commercially] operating the drone. The pilot of your chartered aircraft is, presumably, commercially licensed to be providing/selling that service.

With the drone you are both pilot and photographer. In your contrast example you are just the photographer.

 

[Heavydpj]

Question to this: according to FAA I’d need a part 107 to make money from anything I do with a drone…. So I go up to 235’ AGL And take a photo for my self. It fine, if I sale it I’d need 107.. however if I charter a aircraft or helicopter and take the photo from the door. And sold the image, I do not need a part 107…

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…

Because the Pilot in Command of the aircraft you are chartering already has an FAA certification.

I suppose if you want to sit on top of your drone while someone else with a Part 107 certification flys it you could probably do that.

 

[theflyinggrip]

Question to this: according to FAA I’d need a part 107 to make money from anything I do with a drone…. So I go up to 235’ AGL And take a photo for my self. It fine, if I sale it I’d need 107.. however if I charter a aircraft or helicopter and take the photo from the door. And sold the image, I do not need a part 107…

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…

I understand where your coming from...there seem to be a lot of ambiguity to these laws. On the flip side I can see the difference in that you are the photographer and Pilot with a drone where as from a manned aircraft you are a passenger hangin' 10 out the door with a camera just along for the ride.

 

[dmwfotos]

Question to this: according to FAA I’d need a part 107 to make money from anything I do with a drone…. So I go up to 235’ AGL And take a photo for my self. It fine, if I sale it I’d need 107.. however if I charter a aircraft or helicopter and take the photo from the door. And sold the image, I do not need a part 107…

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…

It's a simple difference. The pilot of the helicopter has the FAA pilot certificate. In fact, considering that you are paying him for the flight, it has to be a commercial certificate. Which requires additional training and testing.
The FAA is concerned about pilots knowing the rules and being safe in the public airspace.

For drone flying, they have decided not to require licensing private UAV pilots. They do want commercial pilots to be registered and knowledge about the rules and best practices. As demonstrated by passing a written test.

Taking it one step farther, if your drone has the capability for two controllers to be attached, a part 107 pilot could fly the drone and you could control the gimbal and camera to take the pictures. In that instance you don't have to have any certifications since you are not controlling the drone.

this is often the practice when doing film productions.

 

[Dpixtion]

Thank you all for your reply to my question. all been a great help in understanding.
I'm studying to take the 107. And I understand the PIC standpoint. After reading/watching videos more about it. I still find it 'humorous' as a Recreational PIC I can press a button on the controller and take a photo or pano image and print that without a 107, That's within the guidelines... As a part 107, I can do the very same button push and sell it for profit to earn money with a 107 license, Though pressing the button is the same licensed or not. LOL... That's all.

Yes, I do understand why the 107 is needed and fully endorse it for safety and knowledge. Pilot Institute is a great course so far, enjoying it.

 

[dmwfotos]

Thank you all for your reply to my question. all been a great help in understanding.
I'm studying to take the 107. And I understand the PIC standpoint. After reading/watching videos more about it. I still find it 'humorous' as a Recreational PIC I can press a button on the controller and take a photo or pano image and print that without a 107, That's within the guidelines... As a part 107, I can do the very same button push and sell it for profit to earn money with a 107 license, Though pressing the button is the same licensed or not. LOL... That's all.

Yes, I do understand why the 107 is needed and fully endorse it for safety and knowledge. Pilot Institute is a great course so far, enjoying it.

Think about flying a drone with camera as a manned camera aircraft like those used for Google mapping.
Or the U2 spy plane. The pilot can press the button to take the picture(s) but his pilot's certificate has to have a commercial endorsement if he want's to get paid for the flight.

Same plane, same pilot different purpose. Although I can't imagine to many private pilots being able to afford a camera equipped aircraft.

The grey area, with manned aircraft are the guys in their 182 that are flying around taking pictures of people's houses, farms, etc, and then knocking on their door with a print for sale. All the pilots I know about that have done that have commercial endorsements.

 

[Drone_Pilot]

There is no general restriction on taking photographs while on private property as long as the photographer has permission and owners or tenants do not normally have a right to stop someone from taking photos of their property from a public place. So if you take off from a public place you can shoot photos all day. long

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tampa, FL - Hanlon Law

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tampa, FL - Hanlon Law | Florida-based criminal defense law firm Hanlon Law is full of winning lawyers. We aggressively defended clients all across FL. Let us fight for you and help you win the fight. Visit our website or call us at (813) 228-7095 to schedule your...

thecourtroom.org

 

[JGRAHAM]

It's an easy answer. You can photograph from the road or above private property, with no restrictions/ Selling fo profit images of the private land or property of others(for commercial purposes) requires a photo release.
There are quite a few release forms available vial app on iOS and Android. Click HERE.. The less complicated unassuming release the better. People get scared when they see pages of legal documents.

Basically, the law is that someone can stand in the road,(public road),,,photograph your house, print it and put the print up on YOUR wall. However if you go to sell that print you need a photo release.

I've been a professional photographer for almost 30 years. I've found that lots of folks are flattered to have their barns etc. photographed as long as you are forthcoming and honest. I always ask before shooting their stuff and tell them what your purpose is. You might be surprised on how nice people can be. But beware, some might give you so grief. Most are good folks!-JG

 

[51 Drones]

You'd need to have a Part 107 license.

Actually, you don’t. I have studied this extensively and visited with FAA officials. The premise of “in furtherance of a business” is based on the INTENT of the flight when the images were captured. If you are flying your drone recreationally, and snap a few photos while you are flying, as long as your intent was to fly for fun, then that falls under the recreational flight distinction. A month later, you decide to make a calendar with those images and sell it on Etsy, you still DO NOT need a Part 107, because it is based on your intent at the time of flight.

 

[51 Drones]

S

It's an easy answer. You can photograph from the road or above private property, with no restrictions/ Selling fo profit images of the private land or property of others(for commercial purposes) requires a photo release.
There are quite a few release forms available vial app on iOS and Android. Click HERE.. The less complicated unassuming release the better. People get scared when they see pages of legal documents.

Basically, the law is that someone can stand in the road,(public road),,,photograph your house, print it and put the print up on YOUR wall. However if you go to sell that print you need a photo release.

I've been a professional photographer for almost 30 years. I've found that lots of folks are flattered to have their barns etc. photographed as long as you are forthcoming and honest. I always ask before shooting their stuff and tell them what your purpose is. You might be surprised on how nice people can be. But beware, some might give you so grief. Most are good folks!-JG

So if this is true for aerial photography, then every image/video posted on a monetized YouTube video would require a photo release by every property owner that has property in the image/video.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Actually, you don’t. I have studied this extensively and visited with FAA officials. The premise of “in furtherance of a business” is based on the INTENT of the flight when the images were captured. If you are flying your drone recreationally, and snap a few photos while you are flying, as long as your intent was to fly for fun, then that falls under the recreational flight distinction. A month later, you decide to make a calendar with those images and sell it on Etsy, you still DO NOT need a Part 107, because it is based on your intent at the time of flight.

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

 

[Defens]

Just for grins, look up “Streisand effect.”

 

[Sparc343]

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 not concerned about the many landscape photos I’m taking of vineyards, fields, and hillsides, because while they are privately owned, they are not easily recognizable.

All advice and recommendations for expert sources will be appreciated!

I am not a lawyer, but to be 100% sure on ANY legal or potentially legal matter I would of course always recommend to contact an attorney... Laws, ESPECIALLY across different jurisdictions, are just TOO different all over the place..!

Now personally, I would imagine that would be perfectly okay to do... While a person (or entity) may own something you photograph (such as land, building/structure, car/motor vehicle, etc) YOU as a photographer own the photo's you take... I would imagine this even extends to the photographing of PEOPLE too. Imagine, a "family portraits" kind of place (or like those places that do school pictures): they take photos of PEOPLE, yet THEY "own" the images... The school one is actually a good thought because they will take the pics (no matter what), and the parents generally get a bunch of "proofs" (with watermarks all over them), and it's up to the families whether to "buy" any prints or not..! So if anything, that is "proof" enough to me, that a photographer OWNS any and all of the photos they take, no matter WHAT their subject matter is..! The only time I could see things becoming an adverse legal situation for a photographer, would be if say, they were trespassing while they took the shot..!

Any way, I could be right, I could be wrong - but either way - those are my $0.02

ps) do they even actually still do those school pix, or did I just show my age LOL?

 

[Sparc343]

And after seeing/reading a few other responses in here - it WOULD make COMPLETE sense to me that you actually could NOT use photos of "private 'stuff'" for something "commercial" like a postcard or calendar etc without a release... And that makes complete sense to me. While you're "free" to shoot a photo of anything you like as a photographer, lets say I shot a photo of YOUR house... While I could print it and put it on my wall, or print it and put it on a friends wall, or even print it and put it on your wall (give/sell it to you), I could NOT put it on something like a greetings card without YOUR consent (read: release)... So yeah, that makes complete sense to me...

That would also be like, going back to my school pictures examples, the company selling a photo of Johnny to Steve's family... That would (or at least SHOULD) be a BIG NO NO, UNLESS Johnny's parents signed a release allowing them to sell it to OTHERS ("commercially")...

 

[RocketBrew]

Not exactly correct. The FAA requires all drone flights and pilots to follow the Part 107 regulations - the AMA lobbied Congress to require the FAA to provide an exemption from those regulations for “recreational” flights. The FAA didn’t decide to do that, they were forced to do it.

For drone flying, they have decided not to require licensing private UAV pilots. They do want commercial pilots to be registered and knowledge about the rules and best practices. As demonstrated by passing a written test.

 

[Howard70]

H

It's an easy answer. You can photograph from the road or above private property, with no restrictions/ Selling fo profit images of the private land or property of others(for commercial purposes) requires a photo release.
There are quite a few release forms available vial app on iOS and Android. Click HERE.. The less complicated unassuming release the better. People get scared when they see pages of legal documents.

Basically, the law is that someone can stand in the road,(public road),,,photograph your house, print it and put the print up on YOUR wall. However if you go to sell that print you need a photo release.

I've been a professional photographer for almost 30 years. I've found that lots of folks are flattered to have their barns etc. photographed as long as you are forthcoming and honest. I always ask before shooting their stuff and tell them what your purpose is. You might be surprised on how nice people can be. But beware, some might give you so grief. Most are good folks!-JG

Hello Jack:

Thanks for the summary! Is there any distinction whether or not a person or structure is recognizable in an image? In other words if I take an image of a crowd of 100 people from a distance such that none of the individuals is recognizable (due to the distance) would I still need 100 model releases?

Say I take a photo panorama image of Mount Hood (public property) but there are some private property holdings within the forested slopes of the image, would I need releases from the owners of those properties?

I definitely agree with you about asking permission if a private structure or property is the central component of an image - that’s just common courtesy! It’s the more sweeping images I’m wondering about.

Howard

 

[GeorgiaFlash]

H

Hello Jack:

Thanks for the summary! Is there any distinction whether or not a person or structure is recognizable in an image? In other words if I take an image of a crowd of 100 people from a distance such that none of the individuals is recognizable (due to the distance) would I still need 100 model releases?

Say I take a photo panorama image of Mount Hood (public property) but there are some private property holdings within the forested slopes of the image, would I need releases from the owners of those properties?

I definitely agree with you about asking permission if a private structure or property is the central component of an image - that’s just common courtesy! It’s the more sweeping images I’m wondering about.

Howard

All photography is relative and depends upon who you ask will depend on the answer to your questions. I post a lot of photos on stock photo sites and they reject anything with a face in it, even in a crowd of 100, without a model release. I live in Atlanta and I take plenty cityscape photos but we have the Mercedes Benz stadium here and if I include that in a city scape with the logo on the stadium most agencies will reject it even though its not the prominent building in the picture. But some stock agencies will accept it, just depends. If you're selling the picture for commercial purposes then IMO its a roll of the dice.

 

[eric32]

I work in real estate. The rule that we follow is don't be close enough to see into someone's windows. We typically don't take any photography from under 100'
unless its one of our listings in luxury real estate. The bottom line is, if you take off from public property, have your Part 107, fly safe, obey all other laws, maintain your insurance, there is nothing anyone can do in the public domain. They can gripe and moan, but legally you are on solid ground.