Let the debating begin...

[SkyeHigh]

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.

I fully agree with you. Air and public safety should be the only thing the FAA/CAA/CASA/etc should be involved with (regarding drone flights) - isn’t that their remit?

Whether the intent of a flight is for commercial gain or not should have no relevance.

Whether it is safe for a pilot to take a photograph and remain fully situationally aware is another issue of safety and applies just as equally to commercial and recreational pilots

And as others have mentioned photography of any sort is not their concern within the limited height AGL we have available to us.

 

[Meta4]

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.

The FAA guy in that video in post #1 has no idea what he was talking about and was just confusing people with more misinformation.
What he said was very, very wrong.
See post #18 to get the FAA's official policy on posting videos on Youtube rather than being confused by an individual FAA employee that has no idea.
Or see here for more information:

commercial license

And he's wrong. Information from Youtube presenters is just as likely to be incorrect as opinions of forum members and some individual FAA personnel. At 9:47 he says: If you say I'm going to fly out there to put my footage on Youtube so that everybody can see it, then all of a sudden you are no...

mavicpilots.com

 

[DoomMeister]

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.

Reread my post. You misunderstood what I said. I know you need a 107 to commercialize. I said both were my hobby and I fly AND take pictures for FUN.
I can sell my land based or photos from a manned flight without any special licensing.
Anything from my drone is purely for my own enjoyment and is never commercialized. I rarely post anything to the forums or to any other social media for any reason.
That mouthpiece for the FAA in the video is just preaching the new mantra of the FAA set forth by all the big business interests that want the hobbyist out of the skies. To that I present a one finger salute.

 

[Meta4]

That mouthpiece for the FAA in the video is just preaching the new mantra of the FAA set forth by all the big business interests that want the hobbyist out of the skies. To that I present a one finger salute.

Actually the "mouthpiece" from the FAA in that video is just confusing the issue as he's very mistaken and spreading misinformation.

 

[DoomMeister]

Actually the "mouthpiece" from the FAA in that video is just confusing the issue as he's very mistaken and spreading misinformation.

I know and it pisses me off that they let jerks like that open their yaps. I know the rules and follow them. The thing is they would love to spread that idea and let it blossom.

 

[DanMan32]

Reread my post. You misunderstood what I said. I know you need a 107 to commercialize. I said both were my hobby and I fly AND take pictures for FUN.
I can sell my land based or photos from a manned flight without any special licensing.
Anything from my drone is purely for my own enjoyment and is never commercialized. I rarely post anything to the forums or to any other social media for any reason.
That mouthpiece for the FAA in the video is just preaching the new mantra of the FAA set forth by all the big business interests that want the hobbyist out of the skies. To that I present a one finger salute.

I didn't quote you. It was a statement to the masses since I'm seeing a lot of emphasis on posting drone videos to YT without mentioning the intent of the flight.

 

[DoomMeister]

I didn't quote you. It was a statement to the masses since I'm seeing a lot of emphasis on posting drone videos to YT without mentioning the intent of the flight.

Okay, just wanted my position to be clear. No hard feelings toward you. I’m just miffed at the words that were coming out of the mouth of the alleged FAA employee. Just because I use my drone to capture an image doesn’t mean I’m not having fun in the process. Most of the time I start the video before I leave the ground and turn it off when I land. If I capture good footage it is a bonus, but I also have a record of the flight should anything go wrong.

 

[DanMan32]

I usually record my entire flights too.
I found an elephant in a pond behind a local park when I reviewed one of my recordings.

To clarify, it was a silhouette of an elephant someone planted.

 

[unionglzr]

I'm slightly confused. Are you saying this person is lying? That it's just a promotional video? It appears this is on the level. Help me understand how it is not.

Who is to say the other guy is really FAA rep.

 

[Meta4]

Who is to say the other guy is really FAA rep.

He is but he's quite confused and his information is very misleading.

 

[WithTheBirds]

I don't, but neither do I with YouTube but some suggest that YouTube themselves benefit from my use of their product with my posts of drone footage and so that would be a 107 flight.
So would the mail service benefit from my use of their services to convey my drone footage so that too would be a 107 flight by the same argument.

Both seem absurd.

You have created a false equivalency here- in any case even to the extent it was good analogy it is wasted effort. Your time might be better invested in finding a case of one person who was found to be operating illegally by the FAA simply because they posted footage on YouTube.

 

[Chip]

You have created a false equivalency here- in any case even to the extent it was good analogy it is wasted effort. Your time might be better invested in finding a case of one person who was found to be operating illegally by the FAA simply because they posted footage on YouTube.

That would be hard to do because the FAA has itself said we will not take action against someone based solely on photo or video posted on social media. But, for gosh sake, that is not because everyone who works at the FAA is a real nice person who really cares about our hobby and us as people. Its because even the FAA has vague understanding of the rule of law including the need to authenticate evidence before it can be used against someone in administrative or judicial court. That is one reason why the FAA always starts by sending you a letter with a kind of "Miranda" warning, the old anything can and will be used against you. Please remember as well that the FAA holds itself out as a resource and force multiplier for local law enforcement who are very much encouraged, aided and abetted by the FAA to prosecute people at state and local level. The FAA's hidden tentacles run deep.

 

[DanMan32]

My point was that it seems those at FAA aren't sure what should constitute "recreational use". There is the term "to further a business" but some have reported that some at FAA consider simply posting on YT is furthering YT's business and so if you flew with the intent to post on YT, regardless of the nature of the posting, you're disqualified from treating the flight as recreational.

So I was commenting and trying to make an analogy of how ridiculous that is.

 

[BigAl07]

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!

First off, THANK YOU for your Service to our great Country!!

Re: Hobby vs Commercial - Yes as long as the original flight in which you obtained the DATA was flown strictly within the "protection" of hobby/recreational flying you are good to go. They don't care how you use the DATA so long as the flight(s) that acquired the DATA followed the rules. You could legally sell that DATA after the fact so long as INTENT of the flight was hobby and followed all rules of hobby/recreational flights. In regards to selling the DATA, I wouldn't make it a habit because you'll have a difficult time proving that every flight was RECREATIONAL and you just happen to sell that DATA after the fact EVERY TIME!

Part 61: not good enough to fly a drone commercially - You're no more credentialed to fly a Drone Commercially than you are to fly a Helicopter without that rating. You know better than this. You fully understand the different levels of Pilot Credentials so why should UAS be any different.

Also if you're "Current" with your Part 61 then the Part 107 test is online, free, and insanely easy because it's only DRONE questions since you've already demonstrated your proficiency in everything else AVIATION related.

 

[Meta4]

some have reported that some at FAA consider simply posting on YT is furthering YT's business and so if you flew with the intent to post on YT, regardless of the nature of the posting, you're disqualified from treating the flight as recreational.

So I was commenting and trying to make an analogy of how ridiculous that is.

It's not just ridiculous, it's just not true as several posts in this thread have made clear.

 

[DanMan32]

It's not just ridiculous, it's just not true as several posts in this thread have made clear.

Exactly, but apparently even some FAA agents believe this which i demonstrate by analogy would be ridiculous to be true.

 

[spsphotos]

But what the FAA guys says is utter rubbish. But being the guy with the badge, but the FAA guys is saying "The law is what I/we say it is". And here is the logical rebuttal for his/their nonsensical position:

Can you take photographs as a hobbiest from your pocket camera or even from your drone without flight? Of course.
Can you take those photos and post them on your social media page without ANY commercial intent? Of course.
But were you to do the same thing with your drone, turn the camera on, take photo or video of a family event, or butterflies mating or whatever, post it on your media page.... that makes it Part 107?
There seems to be a major disconnect here.

And then the dude goes on to say something that totally rebuts his previous statement; that anything that promotes "furtherance of a business" is Part 107. I wasn't aware that posting stuff on FaceBook or YouTube or Instagram without any real business implication could be furtherance thereof. It seems existential in nature; that if there is no business, how could there be any furtherance of same of something that doesn't exist???

So much more that can be said.

You are SOO off the mark it's laughable. You cannot compare taking a photo from a handheld camera ON the ground to one from a drone. FAA does not have jurisdiction ON the ground.

The rules are NOT hard to understand. If you wake up and go out with the INTENT of taking footage to post on your social media page you are under Park 107. PERIOD. If you go out just to mess with your drone, practice flying, and film some stuff and later down the road decide that "hey, that looks cool, I think I'll share this" you are a recreational flyer. PERIOD. It's all about INTENT at the moment you are flying. Yes, the intent is hard to prove in most cases, but if you have a YouTUbe channel or FB group where you post lots of drone flights and images it's very easy for the FAA to show intent. If you post an occasional image/video on your personal FB page or if you have a TY account that you mostly post other things to you are fairly safe to say your intent was recreational. Read up the rules here: Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

Yes, I know it sound nitpicky and it is a razor edge, but nothing in the video posted by the OP is incorrect or false.

Note that soon it may become moot as you will be REQUIRED to take a certification course even for recreational flying.

Changes Coming in the Future​

The law also requires:

1. Drone operators to pass an online aeronautical knowledge and safety test and carry proof of test passage.
2. The FAA to issue guidance for how it will recognize community-based organizations.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

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.

This is for you.

Definition of HYPERBOLE

extravagant exaggeration (such as 'mile-high ice-cream cones')… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I've had dealings with the FAA personally and have never been fined / penalized. I really haven't heard of many cases that have gone that far and of those I have, it was usually clear that the pilot was given every opportunity to avoid penalties, but ignored them.

Chris

 

[davidp158]

Does the regulation related to "community based organizations" only apply within those communities? I have to assume that it applies if I'm flying within an area reserved for remote controlled model planes, but what about outside those areas?

 

[davidp158]

While I realize the FAA is pretty strict about these rules, but I think many careless drone owners have brought this upon us. I often see videos by people breaking every rule imaginable, combined with a "rules don't apply to me, I'm a rebel" attitude. That bugs me a lot more than FAA rules. The more people continue to break the rules, the more rules will come down on us and only limit what we can do even more. Just sayin'