Monetization of Social Media Accounts

[Dbez1]

I agree with the above comment. All I wanted to do was take some photos and videos of the progress of our church’s new addition and give it to them for free. No can-do! Even though no money would be exchanged, they asked me to do it and that would take it out of the recreational arena. For what it’s worth, I suggest you get your 107 because it will make you a safer pilot and you will no longer be looking over your shoulder. The information learned is interesting.

 

[Meta4]

I agree with the above comment. All I wanted to do was take some photos and videos of the progress of our church’s new addition and give it to them for free.

The forum is full of this very strict interpretation, but is it true?
I remember when I was a new flyer, I'd fly to photograph anything for experience and fun.
Just because you give the photos to someone doesn't mean that you weren't flying recreationally.

 

[SmilingOgre]

The forum is full of this very strict interpretation, but is it true?
I remember when I was a new flyer, I'd fly to photograph anything for experience and fun.
Just because you give the photos to someone doesn't mean that you weren't flying recreationally.

lol, I love it. "Is it true". If the FAA agent(s) involved believe it to be true, then it is. If they believe you were just flying around having fun and later though wow maybe the church would like to see this then that is now true. If they believe you were documenting the activity to give to the church than that case is true. The second scenereo being a service provided and problematic.

I think a better question would be why would an agent become involved. Was there a complaint by church lady Karen? Was the agent out for a walk with his or her dog and really taken by your flying? Did the agent see an advertisement of come visit our new church? Was this church in a Class B airspace? Was the agent below his quota of busts for the month?

 

[Ty Pilot]

Just because you give the photos to someone doesn't mean that you weren't flying recreationally.

But it also doesn't mean that you were flying recreationally. Below is a screen shot directly off the FAA's website in regards to this topic, I find it interesting how they worded this.

Note how they say that if you're not sure which rules apply; that you should fly under 107

 

[JV Flys]

The time commitment and expense to operate and maintain monetization on a platform such as Youtube is far greater than taking the 107 exam. Also, all of the material to study and pass the 107 is free for anyone who wants it, and while many go the paid 'study course' route. there are a great number who don't. The recurrency testing for 107 is now free and online, so you do not have to pay every time you take those tests.

In my opinion, the positives to obtaining a 107 far exceed the initial cost and study time involved because even if one never operate as a commercial pilot as a part or full time job, they will be a far more informed and safe pilot, simply because of what they have learned.

Thanks for the info and you are right. I may take the test sometime in the future but for now I am 52 years old and a very cautious flyer. I always check the maps and make sure I am cleared for take off, GPS lock ect.... I am not doing anything complicated at all. Pretty much go up fly around a bit to take some videos and Photos and then back down. I am sure the 107 could teach me things about flying a drone I am just not sure how useful it would be to the way I fly right now.

 

[FLDave]

Thanks for the info and you are right. I may take the test sometime in the future but for now I am 52 years old and a very cautious flyer. I always check the maps and make sure I am cleared for take off, GPS lock ect.... I am not doing anything complicated at all. Pretty much go up fly around a bit to take some videos and Photos and then back down. I am sure the 107 could teach me things about flying a drone I am just not sure how useful it would be to the way I fly right now.

Since you brought up age, you are quite young and no reason to wait for 107. It's the perfect time to get your 107 and learn how to be cautious with all aspects of flying from weather issues to controlled airspace issues to recreational and non recreational.

 

[MavicAir2Marc]

I did the self study route for my Part 107 and passed with ease. Plus as @Ty Pilot says, the recurrency tests are now free and online. There are other benefits besides the money making aspect like flying in controlled airspace at night or being able to fly 400ft above a structure (whereas recreational pilots can only fly 400' AGL).

 

[WilliamDaugherty]

The FAA folks at the drone hotline will gladly explain to you that "purely recreational" means just that: flying for the fun of flying. Not taking pictures or video, and certainly not sharing that media with others. Having a portfolio demonstrates an intent to create content. Don't take my word for it. Call them yourself. I've had several reps tell me it is "...like flying a kite", which is a far cry from flying to take photos and video footage. There are lots of great YouTube videos, including from Pilot Institute, explaining how the FAA interprets "purely recreational".

Another important point about your suggestion that you might monetize "...if the channel gets big enough." Your Part 107 would only cover work you did AFTER you got it. That means all the work you did BEFORE would not be covered and can never be monetized.

Taking and passing the Part 107 exam is not difficult for most people. Passing the currency test is now free and can be done online, so waiting until later won't save you money. I did it with no classroom experience and with about two weeks of reading and watching YouTube videos. I did a bit more studying for the currency test in 2021 after the rules changed, but probably not more than a few hours worth.

 

[Meta4]

The FAA folks at the drone hotline will gladly explain to you that "purely recreational" means just that: flying for the fun of flying. Not taking pictures or video, and certainly not sharing that media with others. Having a portfolio demonstrates an intent to create content. Don't take my word for it.

I won't ... this is just extreme fundamentalist nonsense.
You can fly and take photos purely for your own enjoyment.
The FAA has no rules or regulations about photos, just about flying.
You can share your photos without changing the nature of the flight from recreational to non-recreational too.

Another important point about your suggestion that you might monetize "...if the channel gets big enough." Your Part 107 would only cover work you did AFTER you got it. That means all the work you did BEFORE would not be covered and can never be monetized.

That's nonsense as well.

 

[smashse]

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.

Part 107 is the FAA rules for drones, there are "recreational exceptions" to needing part 107, but they are very narrow.

All it takes is 1 Karen out there to be pissed that you flew nearby on a beach, and you may have the FAA calling.

Drone Pilot Received $182,000 Proposed Fine

The FAA has proposed to fine a drone pilot for $182,000. The story has been going around the internet recently. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was gracious enough to allow me to obtain a copy of the proposed penalty letter which went much more into detail as to the alleged violations...

jrupprechtlaw.com

This guy was just uploading to YT as well... (No idea if it was monetized, but the FAA never seems to mention that as an issue). Now, he was also not flying safe or responsibly, and ignored a few warning letters, but this guy was just like the OP, uploading to YT without a 107. He got complaints because of safety, but 26 violations were because he didn't have his 107.

 

[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.

There are a lot of myths and misinformation around this issue.
This post is just one more example.
You do not require 107 to upload video to Youtube.

 

[smashse]

There are a lot of myths and misinformation around this issue.
This post is just one more example.
You do not require 107 to upload video to Youtube.

Did you read the article? Guy got 182,000 fine for uploading to Youtube. It had nothing to do with monetization. The commercial use according to the FAA is regardless if money is made. So YOUR post is misinformation, I provided evidence from a real drone attorney. 26 of the violations were solely because he didn't have a 107 license.

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. If you intend to fly around and happen to get a rare wildlife video and post it, well the intent of the flight was not YT, so it's fine.

 

[Ty Pilot]

The article you linked to does mention YouTube but not for the reasons you think. In that case the pilots' YouTube videos showed proof that he was violating regulations; 12 separate regulations in total, he broke multiple times on 26 individual flights.

It should be noted that this guy was approached by the FAA on two previous occasions and given counseling and training without any penalties. He continued to break the rules and flaunt himself doing so through his videos but make no mistake, his penalties and punishment were not about youtube

Below are the regulations and subparts thereof that he broke - please note none have anything to do with Youtube.

§ 107.12 Requirement for a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating.
107.12(a),
107.12(b),

§ 107.19 Remote pilot in command.
107.19(c),
107.19(d),
107.19(e),

§ 107.23 Hazardous operation.
107.23(a),

§ 107.29 Operation at night.
107.29(a),

§ 107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation.
107.31,

§ 107.39 Operation over human beings.
107.39,

§ 107.41 Operation in certain airspace.
107.41,

§ 107.49 Preflight familiarization, inspection, and actions for aircraft operation.
107.49(a),

§ 107.65 Aeronautical knowledge recency.
107.65.

 

[Ty Pilot]

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

Just for clarification here are two paragraphs from the Rupprechtlaw article in his own words. . . .

"This individual published a large number of videos on YouTube where he shows screenshots of the ground control station that has all sorts of things like altitude, the drone’s distance from the pilot, the drone’s location on a map, direction of flight, and many more pieces of info.

With these videos, the FAA has many of the pieces of the puzzle to do a prosecution and just needs to figure out the approximate time. This is why in the letter the 26 events all start with “On or about” so as to leave some wiggle room."

 

[JV Flys]

I did the self study route for my Part 107 and passed with ease. Plus as @Ty Pilot says, the recurrency tests are now free and online. There are other benefits besides the money making aspect like flying in controlled airspace at night or being able to fly 400ft above a structure (whereas recreational pilots can only fly 400' AGL).

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.

Part 107 is the FAA rules for drones, there are "recreational exceptions" to needing part 107, but they are very narrow.

All it takes is 1 Karen out there to be pissed that you flew nearby on a beach, and you may have the FAA calling.

Drone Pilot Received $182,000 Proposed Fine

The FAA has proposed to fine a drone pilot for $182,000. The story has been going around the internet recently. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was gracious enough to allow me to obtain a copy of the proposed penalty letter which went much more into detail as to the alleged violations...

jrupprechtlaw.com

This guy was just uploading to YT as well... (No idea if it was monetized, but the FAA never seems to mention that as an issue). Now, he was also not flying safe or responsibly, and ignored a few warning letters, but this guy was just like the OP, uploading to YT without a 107. He got complaints because of safety, but 26 violations were because he didn't have his 107.

Hello, Thank you for the link. I read the article but it seems to me the FAA did not fine him because he was posting videos to You Tube without part 107. According to the article the FAA used the You Tube videos he posted to prove that he flyer violated FAA Drone regulations under part 107. It seems the regulation he violated it would not matter whether he had the part 107 or not. He was posting videos that had all the drone telemetry showing that he was flying in controlled airspace without authorization. Even with the part 107 you need to obtain authorization before flying in controlled air space. The telemetry also showed multiple other violations under part 107. The article never even mentions whether or not the drone operator had the part 107 but does say the violations where under Part 107. If he had not been posting the complete telemetry of Drone this probably would not have been as issue as the FAA would have no way to know where he was flying from and if he was breaking the rules.

 

[Starz]

If the FAA agent(s) involved believe it to be true, then it is.

The judge presiding in a case brought to court along with the jury members may have other opinions.
Last I heard, that’s how the process works. I‘ve not had to deal with court proceedings for some time now, so I guess it’s possibly things have changed.

 

[smashse]

The article you linked to does mention YouTube but not for the reasons you think. In that case the pilots' YouTube videos showed proof that he was violating regulations; 12 separate regulations in total, he broke multiple times on 26 individual flights.

It should be noted that this guy was approached by the FAA on two previous occasions and given counseling and training without any penalties. He continued to break the rules and flaunt himself doing so through his videos but make no mistake, his penalties and punishment were not about youtube

Below are the regulations and subparts thereof that he broke - please note none have anything to do with Youtube.

§ 107.12 Requirement for a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating.
107.12(a),
107.12(b),

§ 107.19 Remote pilot in command.
107.19(c),
107.19(d),
107.19(e),

§ 107.23 Hazardous operation.
107.23(a),

§ 107.29 Operation at night.
107.29(a),

§ 107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation.
107.31,

§ 107.39 Operation over human beings.
107.39,

§ 107.41 Operation in certain airspace.
107.41,

§ 107.49 Preflight familiarization, inspection, and actions for aircraft operation.
107.49(a),

§ 107.65 Aeronautical knowledge recency.
107.65.

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.

 

[SmilingOgre]

The judge presiding in a case brought to court along with the jury members may have other opinions.
Last I heard, that’s how the process works. I‘ve not had to deal with court proceedings for some time now, so I guess it’s possibly things have changed.

Unfortunately this is not criminal law. This is civil law. A whole different bag of worms.

 

[smashse]

Hello, Thank you for the link. I read the article but it seems to me the FAA did not fine him because he was posting videos to You Tube without part 107. According to the article the FAA used the You Tube videos he posted to prove that he flyer violated FAA Drone regulations under part 107. It seems the regulation he violated it would not matter whether he had the part 107 or not. He was posting videos that had all the drone telemetry showing that he was flying in controlled airspace without authorization. Even with the part 107 you need to obtain authorization before flying in controlled air space. The telemetry also showed multiple other violations under part 107. The article never even mentions whether or not the drone operator had the part 107 but does say the violations where under Part 107. If he had not been posting the complete telemetry of Drone this probably would not have been as issue as the FAA would have no way to know where he was flying from and if he was breaking the rules.

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.

 

[TommyGrimmer]