Monetization of Social Media Accounts

[Ty Pilot]

How come then ALL of the violations you list are "Part 107"? Did you notice none of them are 44809, the Rec exemption? If he wasn't flying under 107, and was flying under 44809, then they would cite 44809... You should read your own response to what they actually hit him for. They claim he was flying commercially, and what was he doing? Putting them on Youtube and no mention of monetization.

Your first one is literally flying without a Part 107...

Violating
§ 107.12 Requirement for a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating.

Here is where a lot of folks who don't pay attention get caught out.

1] The default regulation for all UA under 55 pounds in the US is 107. (see the screen shot below - it is from the FAAs website.

2] The FAA provides a carve-out or bubble within which recreational flight can occur.

3] In the event that a pilot who thinks he or she is flying recreationally, strays outside that "bubble", they are now responsible to fly under 107, and not just part of it but all of it.

The guy in question was told repeatedly that he was in violation of not only recreational rules, but that if he continued he would be held liable under 107.

He WAS NOT operating within the "carve out" or "bubble" of recreational flight and therefore was hit with those 12 violations - that he repeatedly broke over a span of 26 documented flights.

You have accused others of not reading the link that YOU posted yet you seem to have no knowledge of what was in it. Those infractions I sited are directly from Rupprechtlaw.com and have been documented over and over.

 

[smashse]

Here is where a lot of folks who don't pay attention get caught out.

1] The default regulation for all UA under 55 pounds in the US is 107. (see the screen shot below - it is from the FAAs website.

2] The FAA provides a carve-out or bubble within which recreational flight can occur.

3] In the event that a pilot who thinks he or she is flying recreationally, strays outside that "bubble", they are now responsible to fly under 107, and not just part of it but all of it.

The guy in question was told repeatedly that he was in violation of not only recreational rules, but that if he continued he would be held liable under 107.

He WAS NOT operating within the "carve out" or "bubble" of recreational flight and therefore was hit with those 12 violations - that he repeatedly broke over a span of 26 documented flights.

You have accused others of not reading the link that YOU posted yet you seem to have no knowledge of what was in it. Those infractions I sited are directly from Rupprechtlaw.com and have been documented over and over.

View attachment 158204

Well, Here's what the OP said, and what the FAA says now.

OP: "Lets say at some point in the future the accounts get large enough to monetize. Do you think you would need the part 107 to monetize your social media drone account?"

So even flying to generate interest, like "gaining subscribers" would be gaining good will. Just posting videos for your friends and family is NOT commercial, buy once you state, as the OP did in a later comment, that he would "gain subscribers" would be commercial. Read the response from the FAA.

FAA:

 

[Ty Pilot]

Well, Here's what the OP said, and what the FAA says now.

I think the problem here is; you are having two separate conversations and trying to tie them together. My first response to you was because said the following:

Did you read the article? Guy got 182,000 fine for uploading to Youtube. It had nothing to do with monetization.

Nope. He was not fined for anything having to do with Youtube. the article you posted so much as spells that fact out. As I showed he was fined for breaking many FAA regulations. Nothing to do with Youtube.
Youtube was just the means by which he hung himself.

The idea that posting drone video of any kind on Youtube requires 107 certification, is a myth.

In your recent post above #42, the FAA's response (you highlighted in yellow), is in line with what I have now posted twice in this thread in the form of a screen shot from the FAA's website, the last was literally the post prior (#41)

I am well aware of what does or does not constitute commercial flight.

 

[JV Flys]

Yes they used YT as evidence, but he violated operating a drone in a commercial manner without a part 107 license. That was the first links the other person posted. Operating a UAS without a license Part A and B.

Why don't you deniers just email the FAA. I did, and they said ANYTHING that has an intent of a job or function is part 107. Just like I said in the very first response I made, that if you fly rec, and happen to catch something awesome, and post it, that's fine. but if you are flying with the intent of "gaining YT subscribers" just in case you want to monetize, that is LITERALLY part 107..

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may manipulate the flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft system unless:

(1) That person has a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating issued pursuant to subpart C of this part and satisfies the requirements of § 107.65; or

(2) That person is under the direct supervision of a remote pilot in command and the remote pilot in command has the ability to immediately take direct control of the flight of the small unmanned aircraft.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may act as a remote pilot in command unless that person has a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating issued pursuant to Subpart C of this part and satisfies the requirements of § 107.65.

OK, so according to your own account if I am posting with no intent to monetize I don't have to get the part 107, correct? I agree with you that if your only intent for posting drone footage online is to monetize an account you should be part 107 licensed. Right now I have no intent to monetize anything I am posting online so why would I need to be part 107 licensed? Just because I post things online to social media accounts does not automatically mean that I have an intent to monetize. You need at least 10,000 followers to begin monetization and probably 100,000 + before you would make any real money. I have 400 followers so at this point I am not even thinking of monetizing. I am just posting my drone footage for fun like the millions of other accounts do without any monetization.

Also regarding the article. This is straight from the article:

Using the video footage of the ground control station which shows the map, you can figure out if the aircraft was in controlled airspace or not. Part 107 drone regulations require you to obtain an authorization for Class B, C, D, or E2 controlled airspace. All authorizations are done through the FAA’s Drone Zone portal or through LAANC. It is really easy for the FAA to check to determine whether the pilot had appropriate authorization or not for Philadelphia’s Class B airspace (KPHL). Nothing shows up. Bam! You have 26 violations of section 107.41.

The flights happened during the day and the night in weather conditions such as “in heavy fog”, “while it was raining”, “while it was snowing”, and “during strong winds[.]” Night is an easy one to figure out but how could the FAA figure out about the weather conditions? Video for one. Secondly, Philadelphia’s airport publishes METeorological Aerodrome Reports (METARs) which are easy to access. These METARs can give you all sorts of weather info.

Part 107 prohibits night flying, flying with visibility less than 3 statute miles, and beyond line of sight without a waiver (but night might change soon). It’s really easy to check to see if the drone pilot had any of these waivers by going to the Part 107 Waivers Issued page and searching. Nothing shows up. Bam! You have a bunch more violations on top of the 107.41 airspace authorization violations abov

It says in the first paragraph above "Part 107 drone regulations require you to obtain an authorization for Class B, C, D, or E2 controlled airspace." This rule is the same whether you are part 107 licensed or not but they go out of there way to mention that it is a Part 107 regulation that was violated. The next 2 paragraphs go on to describe violations for pilots who are already Part 107 licensed. It even says that under part 107 night flights are prohibited which they were in 2020 but as the article notes that did change and night flights are permitted now under Part 107.

Everything I read in the article describes a Part 107 licensed operator that broke a whole bunch rules while flying his drone. I don't know how you can see it any other way based on the wording of the article. No where in the article, not once, does it say that he was being fined for the footage he uploaded to you tube because he was not part 107 licensed. Even if the drone operator was not Part 107 licensed the list of infractions above have nothing to do with the upload to you tube. If he had been flying within the the FAA regulations and posted those videos he would have been fine. The only reason the FAA came after him is because the videos he posted specifically showed that he was in violation of multiple regulations. Its like robbing a bank and filming it for the police! Listen, if you break the FAA regulations, film it and then post the evidence on social media what do you think it going to happen!! That is just very foolish.

 

[smashse]

I think the problem here is; you are having two separate conversations and trying to tie them together. My first response to you was because said the following:



Nope. He was not fined for anything having to do with Youtube. the article you posted so much as spells that fact out. As I showed he was fined for breaking many FAA regulations. Nothing to do with Youtube.
Youtube was just the means by which he hung himself.

The idea that posting drone video of any kind on Youtube requires 107 certification, is a myth.

In your recent post above #42, the FAA's response (you highlighted in yellow), is in line with what I have now posted twice in this thread in the form of a screen shot from the FAA's website, the last was literally the post prior (#41)

I am well aware of what does or does not constitute commercial flight.

I'm not having 2 conversations, I am going by what the OP, the thread topic, is asking, and clarified by their subsequent comments. It is what I have said since the beginning and you have been saying it's fine.

And yes, if I made it sound like any drone video to YT is 107, then that was not what I wanted to convey. I mean I think I've said it twice, if you happen to catch a great video while flying rec, and end up posting it, it is still 100% OK. The videos are never illegal, only the flight in which you intended to "gain followers". If you post videos of your kids in a park and post to Social media with the intended audience family members and yourself, it's 100% legal and recreational under the Exemption 44809.

But the whole topic of this thread is "Lets say at some point in the future the accounts get large enough to monetize. Do you think you would need the part 107 to monetize your social media drone account?"

That is gaining good will, and 100% part 107, even before monetization. If the intent of the flight is to gain followers, that is part 107, regardless if it is monetized or not.

You will notice I said several times, it is the INTENT of the flight, if the INTENT is to gain subscribers, or to make the account busy enough to eventually monetize, then it is 107, even BEFORE monetizing. There is no ambiguity there, if the goal of the flight is to gain followers on social media, then it is 107 as explained in detail by the FAA in the screenshot I posted.

 

[Meta4]

If your intent to fly was recreational, and not to "share" then that's fine. But if your intent is to post it to YT, then it is 107. It is clear and unambiguous in the FAA rules. Simply the intent to put it online, whether to gain popularity, provide images that no one else has been able to get, or anything else is 107.

And, what's misinformation? I refer to the "intent" of the flight, which is what the FAA will say. If you INTEND to fly to post videos to YT, then it is 107.

Now read what you posted from the FAA.

Note the parts I underlined in red which clearly contradict your claim that: if your intent is to post it to YT, then it is 107. It is clear and unambiguous in the FAA rules.
or
If you INTEND to fly to post videos to YT, then it is 107.

What's clear and unambiguous is that the FAA has no objection to you posting on youtube and doing so does not negate your recreational purpose.

 

[smashse]

OK, so according to your own account if I am posting with no intent to monetize I don't have to get the part 107, correct? I agree with you that if your only intent for posting drone footage online is to monetize an account you should be part 107 licensed. Right now I have no intent to monetize anything I am posting online so why would I need to be part 107 licensed? Just because I post things online to social media accounts does not automatically mean that I have an intent to monetize. You need at least 10,000 followers to begin monetization and probably 100,000 + before you would make any real money. I have 400 followers so at this point I am not even thinking of monetizing. I am just posting my drone footage for fun like the millions of other accounts do without any monetization.

Also regarding the article. This is straight from the article:

Using the video footage of the ground control station which shows the map, you can figure out if the aircraft was in controlled airspace or not. Part 107 drone regulations require you to obtain an authorization for Class B, C, D, or E2 controlled airspace. All authorizations are done through the FAA’s Drone Zone portal or through LAANC. It is really easy for the FAA to check to determine whether the pilot had appropriate authorization or not for Philadelphia’s Class B airspace (KPHL). Nothing shows up. Bam! You have 26 violations of section 107.41.

The flights happened during the day and the night in weather conditions such as “in heavy fog”, “while it was raining”, “while it was snowing”, and “during strong winds[.]” Night is an easy one to figure out but how could the FAA figure out about the weather conditions? Video for one. Secondly, Philadelphia’s airport publishes METeorological Aerodrome Reports (METARs) which are easy to access. These METARs can give you all sorts of weather info.

Part 107 prohibits night flying, flying with visibility less than 3 statute miles, and beyond line of sight without a waiver (but night might change soon). It’s really easy to check to see if the drone pilot had any of these waivers by going to the Part 107 Waivers Issued page and searching. Nothing shows up. Bam! You have a bunch more violations on top of the 107.41 airspace authorization violations abov

It says in the first paragraph above "Part 107 drone regulations require you to obtain an authorization for Class B, C, D, or E2 controlled airspace." This rule is the same whether you are part 107 licensed or not but they go out of there way to mention that it is a Part 107 regulation that was violated. The next 2 paragraphs go on to describe violations for pilots who are already Part 107 licensed. It even says that under part 107 night flights are prohibited which they were in 2020 but as the article notes that did change and night flights are permitted now under Part 107.

Everything I read in the article describes a Part 107 licensed operator that broke a whole bunch rules while flying his drone. I don't know how you can see it any other way based on the wording of the article. No where in the article, not once, does it say that he was being fined for the footage he uploaded to you tube because he was not part 107 licensed. Even if the drone operator was not Part 107 licensed the list of infractions above have nothing to do with the upload to you tube. If he had been flying within the the FAA regulations and posted those videos he would have been fine. The only reason the FAA came after him is because the videos he posted specifically showed that he was in violation of multiple regulations. Its like robbing a bank and filming it for the police! Listen, if you break the FAA regulations, film it and then post the evidence on social media what do you think it going to happen!! That is just very foolish.

Ignore the 182k fine I posted, Too many issues with it to be used as a test case.

Read the FAA response to my email, in which I basically copied what your initial post was, that any flight that you do with the intent of gaining "good will" which would be to gain subscribers, would be considered part 107, monetized or not. Regardless if it is a client or not, regardless if it is monetized or not. Any flight with the intention of getting your name out, eventually monetizing, anything in that regard is 107.

Rec is like someone else said, if you are flying for the purpose of flying, then it's rec. If you decide to upload videos to YT for family, its Rec, if you are doing it to get people excited about drones, it's 107, if you are doing it with the intent to maybe someday monetize, then its 107.

 

[smashse]

Now read what you posted from the FAA.

Note the parts I underlined in red which clearly contradict your claim that: if your intent is to post it to YT, then it is 107. It is clear and unambiguous in the FAA rules.
or
If you INTEND to fly to post videos to YT, then it is 107.

What's clear and unambiguous is that the FAA has no objection to you posting on youtube and doing so does not negate your recreational purpose.

OK, so I wasn;t clear. You are correct. But, if you intend to fly to post to YT to gain followers it is 107. IT GENERATES GOOD WILL, which is in yellow.

 

[smashse]

Now read what you posted from the FAA.

Note the parts I underlined in red which clearly contradict your claim that: if your intent is to post it to YT, then it is 107. It is clear and unambiguous in the FAA rules.
or
If you INTEND to fly to post videos to YT, then it is 107.

What's clear and unambiguous is that the FAA has no objection to you posting on youtube and doing so does not negate your recreational purpose.

Unless your INTENT of the flight was to GENERATE FOLLOWERS by POSTING to YT which is generating good will. Since the person here is saying that is the intent, and it is for people he doesn't even personally know, then that is 107.

 

[JV Flys]

So even flying to generate interest, like "gaining subscribers" would be gaining good will. Just posting videos for your friends and family is NOT commercial, buy once you state, as the OP did in a later comment, that he would "gain subscribers" would be commercial. Read the response from the FAA.

That is not what is meant when they say other non revenue actions like good will. Good will means that you give something to someone (like your drone footage) and expect no compensation in return. You can't give away your drone footage as "good will" to your church or any any other organization. There is no good will generated by posting you footage online hoping to gain new followers.

 

[Meta4]

Unless your INTENT of the flight was to GENERATE FOLLOWERS by POSTING to YT which is generating good will. Since the person here is saying that is the intent, and it is for people he doesn't even personally know, then that is 107.

Now all you have to do is work out how to tell if someone is shooting videos with the intent of generating followers or if he just likes creating good videos and enjoys sharing them on social media.

 

[JV Flys]

Now all you have to do is work out how to tell if someone is shooting videos with the intent of generating followers or if he just likes creating good videos and enjoys sharing them on social media.

EXACTLY!!!

 

[smashse]

That is not what is meant when they say other non revenue actions like good will. Good will means that you give something to someone (like your drone footage) and expect no compensation in return. You can't give away your drone footage as "good will" to your church or any any other organization. There is no good will generated by posting you footage online hoping to gain new followers.

Well, you said you weren't one to "roll the dice". Why not ask the FAA directly instead of a bunch of drone users that really are just going to argue over semantics.

Gaining followers is gaining good will. Ask the FAA, if you ask them, "Can I post videos to YoutTube or other social Media, with no intent to monetize, but I am doing it to gain followers, can I do that under 44809 or would I need a part 107 Cert?" The answer is a part 107 cert, as you are "advertising yourself" even if you have no goal of making money at it.

But don't trust me, ask the FAA. They respond quickly during business hours. [email protected]

And @Meta4 , when you post to public forums that FAA members do look at as to your intent to gain followers, then you are rolling the dice.

And no one was asking if you would get caught, the question is do you need a 107 cert to do it legally. If the question is "Will you get caught?", probably not, until something happens or someone complains. But that once again isn't the question.

If you want to ignore what the FAA says, and you fly with the intent to gain followers, and you post that as your intent, and you gain followers that are not in any way connected IRL, even without money, that is part 107. Any flight that you are posting for people you do not know IRL, it is 107. And the OP says he is flying for about 400 followers, which to me makes it too iffy for 44809. And if you put in the video to "Subscribe and follow" because the video is awesome, that's hard to argue out of that you weren't trying to "gain followers".

 

[Meta4]

If you want to ignore what the FAA says, and you fly with the intent to gain followers, and you post that as your intent, and you gain followers that are not in any way connected IRL, even without money, that is part 107.

Concentrating on a thought crime offlying with the intent of creating a video that will gain followers (without 107) gets ridiculous when you take it to that level.

Any flight that you are posting for people you do not know IRL, it is 107.

So you can show videos to friends and family, but not to people you don't know?
Isn't that want social media is all about?
Why doesn't the FAA point this out?

What about the drone flyer who flies with the intent of gaining followers, but his videos suck and he doesn't gain followers?
But his intent when flying was contrary to the rules.
He definitely should have 107 because it's all about intent.

 

[GFields]

This thread has run its course

​