Let the debating begin...

[Chip]

So what is the position of a photographer flying as a passenger in a light aircraft, or an individual flying a microlight or hang glider taking photos whether to sell... or not?

Good question, in order to be consistent, would the FAA “inspectors” not have to investigate every photo or video taken by anyone from a private aircraft and posted on social media to make sure the pilot had a commercial license? Whether the photographer paid to ride in plane should be irrelevant.

 

[Meta4]

Good question, in order to be consistent, would the FAA “inspectors” not have to investigate every photo or video taken by anyone from a private aircraft and posted on social media to make sure the pilot had a commercial license? Whether the photographer paid to ride in plane should be irrelevant.

The FAA is consistent in that they don't care at all about anyone posting aerial videos to Youtube, whether they were shot from a plane or drone.
Neither do they worry about photos.
Why should they?
They don't have any regulations about photos or videos, their concern is aviation safety.

 

[SkyeHigh]

The FAA is consistent in that they don't care at all about anyone posting aerial videos to Youtube, whether they were shot from a plane or drone.
Neither do they worry about photos.
Why should they?
They don't have any regulations about photos or videos, their concern is aviation safety.

So with regard to Part 107, if you’re going to work professionally (ie, earn a living) they just want to ensure you’re doing so with air safety in mind. Surely the same should apply to everyone who flies.

 

[GregS]

They do not speak to pilots like myself or others like me. There are many enthusiasts who fly just because it is a thrill...and never post a video. I may be in the minority here, but that doesn’t change the way the information is being presented to us as viewers.

My main purpose of flying is to take photos and video. I have taken many, many of them and sometimes I think I would like to share a photo or video with friends and family. I usually post on YouTube; not for public viewing, but send the link to them. However, I have occasionally posted some for public viewing. The intent when taking the video was not to do that, but after viewing when I got home, I thought someone might like to watch it. So according to the FAA, I guess I am legal as a recreational pilot.
I do have a Part 61 Commercial Pilots license in fixed wing and helos with instrument rating in both, and also a retired Military Pilot, but that isn't good enough to fly a drone commercially!

 

[Dale D]

I recently found this video, and with the debating going on regarding 51Drones' video of 7 Tips to Avoid the FAA, I thought this was also worth posting if it hasn't been already. It was interesting and some of the information was certainly disappointing ( I can't post to Facebook???)

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

This whole thing is bogus for my own personal experience. At age 82, doing photography since my boyhood years, I have taken and displayed hundreds of thousands of images and videos to groups (friends), Internet forums, but have never, ever received a single dollar. To me, it is a hobby, and always will be. It I is fun and recreation for me. It helps me get through long rainy days while eating at my computer. I have no intention of selling a thing. This whole thread is much ado about nothing.

 

[Chip]

The FAA is consistent in that they don't care at all about anyone posting aerial videos to Youtube, whether they were shot from a plane or drone.
Neither do they worry about photos.
Why should they?
They don't have any regulations about photos or videos, their concern is aviation safety.

I don’t see any logical consistency. The FAA is obsessed with penalizing anyone who takes a photo from a 249 gram uav for any commercial purpose which is construed very broadly but could care less who takes photos from an airplane.

 

[hiflyer201]

I listened to a few minutes of the conversation with the FAA inspector ...O'Boy!..eye's rolling...That guy could cause someone a lot of grief but he's full of it. He obviously is completely unaware of photography as a hobby.
There are plenty of videos on social media that must have been compensated for and any of us can spot them instantly. I'm sure the FAA can do the same.
Whats the controversy on 51 Drones? I love gossip...fill me in

 

[Chip]

The FAA is consistent in that they don't care at all about anyone posting aerial videos to Youtube, whether they were shot from a plane or drone.
Neither do they worry about photos.
Why should they?
They don't have any regulations about photos or videos, their concern is aviation safety.

Yes they have no right or reason to regulate photo taking from the air but they found a back door way to do it which they use to selectively target and regulate drone flyers.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

I think you are all mostly missing the point being made. It's not about whether you are making money or not it's about the perceived intent. It's also not about pictures or video, it's about the intent that doing so implies.

Recreational = Flying just to enjoy flying and nothing else.
Flying to make a youtube video = some intent other than Recreation.
Flying to drop bait is not recreational flying either. You intent is something other than just flying.

If you just posted a casual video for you family to see is one thing as it is not obvious that the intent was to make a video.

Posting to a youtube channel regularly with titles and such in not going to be perceived as recreational. Flying with intent to post a video it is not recreational.

It's not that I agree or disagree, I'm just telling how the FAA is going to look at it.

If you want to post videos to youtube why not just get your 107?

 

[Thomas B]

If your YouTube channel is not monetized you can post there w/o problems....

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

 

[Deleted member 114292]

If your YouTube channel is not monetized you can post there w/o problems....

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

Has nothing to do with money. Go back is listen to what the FAA guy is saying.
But who cares? If they say anything just be nice and they will let you off the hook with a warning.

 

[Thomas B]

Has nothing to do with money. Go back is listen to what the FAA guy is saying.
But who cares? If they say anything just be nice and they will let you off the hook with a warning.

OK... use the word ”compensated” then or whatever fits. My point has nothing to do with that video you mentioned. Just showing a member with a question what can be done legally.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

OK... use the word ”compensated” then or whatever fits. My point has nothing to do with that video you mentioned. Just showing a member with a question what can be done legally.

As I said it’s not about money it’s about a intent nowhere in the FAA literature is money mentioned other than him passing the test of recreational is intent not money

 

[Thomas B]

As I said it’s not about money it’s about a intent nowhere in the FAA literature is money mentioned other than him passing the test of recreational is intent not money

I completely agree with your statement. Let’s move on.

 

[DoomMeister]

Here goes the FAA with trying to RID the skies of recreational sUAS pilots AGAIN!

My hobbies are drone flying and photography I do both for fun. My photography I am free to sell or commercialize to my heart’s content.

The photography from my drone is another story, as I am not allowed to commercialize it without obtaining my 107 cert. That is fine and dandy, but the suggestion that me flying to capture a sunset from the air is a 107 flight is the biggest ? I have heard in a long time. If that is truly how they feel and/or think they need to reassess just what their role is in policing the skies in our country. This is going above and beyond making our skies safe, it is all about monetizing the airspace for big business.

 

[old man mavic]

in less than a month here in the UK, when the new rules come into play,there will be no need to have any formal training or certification to fly a drone for commercial purposes ,and then receive payment or reward for doing it,the distinction between commercial and hobby will be gone
and the level of training to fly different drones will be based on weight of the drone and intent of the flight and location this will include having insurance cover and record keeping and the appropriate permissions in place to enable the flight to take place safely

 

[DanMan32]

Actually you're not allowed to fly for the purpose of commercializing your photography without 107. Its what your intent was for flying. If your intent on what's done with the media changes after the flight, that's not a concern. However repeated "changing your mind" could be looked at as intent to commercial flight the whole time.

 

[Johnmcl7]

That made it as clear as mud but after all that I still would say most of us do fly relationally – the intent is fun or did I miss something ?
Part 107 comes up all the time but what is the equivalent in the UK

I don't think there's a specific number for it but I see it being referred to as being CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) licensed.

 

[DavidT_ NZ]

I cannot see how the safety classification of any drone flight or the qualifications of the drone pilot should have anything to do with the future commercial or non-commercial use of any footage taken off a drone. The presumption is absurd. Not just for Pt 107 in the US, but anywhere. Clear flying safety guidelines should dominate any discussion; any financial association is completely irrelevant. No wonder pilots are finding these “clarifications” conflicting. It needs to be kept very simple and focussed only on the safety criteria of the flight - location, time of day, activities below, shared airspace usage, weather conditions and visibility, drone performance, pilot capabilities, etc. Money? No.

 

[Meta4]

I don’t see any logical consistency. The FAA is obsessed with penalizing anyone who takes a photo from a 249 gram uav for any commercial purpose which is construed very broadly but could care less who takes photos from an airplane.

There's no evidence to support your idea that the FAA is obsessed with penalizing anyone taking a drone photo for commercial use.
How many drone flyers has the FAA penalised for commercial use without a Part 107 certification?
Despite there being thousands out there doing it, some quite blatantly, you could probably count them all on the thumbs of both hands.
There is no real way for the FAA to detect this breach and when/if they do, their action is usually lenient and aimed at education rather than penalties.