New Handle/Name

[MotoSavy]

I've recently updated my username from Abner055 to MotoSavy for the sake of consistency across various platforms. This change aligns with my plans to create motorcycle-related content on YouTube and establish a dedicated website.

The inspiration behind delving into drone technology primarily stems from my passion for motorcycle content creation. While I anticipate exploring other topics in the future, my initial focus will be on sharing aerial footage of motorcycle adventures and the scenic destinations visited during rides.

Excitingly, I'm scheduled to obtain my Part 107 certification tomorrow, which will enable me to promptly begin sharing content on YouTube.

 

[Starz]

begin sharing content on YouTube.

I wasn’t aware that the 107 was a requirement for posting something on the tube.
Educate me please.

 

[MotoSavy]

I wasn’t aware that the 107 was a requirement for posting something on the tube.
Educate me please.

Yes, possessing a Part 107 certification is mandatory if you intend to create videos for platforms like YouTube or any social media platform. Engaging in such activities excludes you from the 44809 Recreation Pilot Exception, as you are not flying solely for recreational purposes but are instead operating under Part 107 regulations. Failure to comply with this requirement can lead to repercussions from the FAA, including potential fines upon detection.

A recent incident serves as a pertinent example. A couple who frequently travels the country in an RV and shares their experiences through YouTube videos encountered a situation where the FAA contacted them. It seems that someone had reported their activities to the FAA.

The FAA informed them that they were prohibited from posting any further footage unless they obtained Part 107 certification, emphasizing the regulatory necessity. However, they were permitted to retain the content already uploaded and could continue posting after acquiring the required certification.

Following this warning, the couple obtained their Part 107 certification, enabling them to resume their travels and content creation without risking any repercussions from the FAA.

It's crucial to recognize that disregarding FAA regulations could result in fines. Additionally, even if the content creators haven't yet met the criteria for monetization on platforms like YouTube, the commercial nature of their videos necessitates adherence to Part 107 regulations.

 

[msinger]

A couple who frequently travels the country in an RV and shares their experiences through YouTube videos encountered a situation where the FAA contacted them

Does this couple also generate income with their YouTube channel? If so, it sounds like a business rather than sharing videos from recreational flights.

 

[mobilehomer]

Yes, possessing a Part 107 certification is mandatory if you intend to create videos for platforms like YouTube or any social media platform. Engaging in such activities excludes you from the 44809 Recreation Pilot Exception, as you are not flying solely for recreational purposes but are instead operating under Part 107 regulations. Failure to comply with this requirement can lead to repercussions from the FAA, including potential fines upon detection.

A recent incident serves as a pertinent example. A couple who frequently travels the country in an RV and shares their experiences through YouTube videos encountered a situation where the FAA contacted them. It seems that someone had reported their activities to the FAA.

The FAA informed them that they were prohibited from posting any further footage unless they obtained Part 107 certification, emphasizing the regulatory necessity. However, they were permitted to retain the content already uploaded and could continue posting after acquiring the required certification.

Following this warning, the couple obtained their Part 107 certification, enabling them to resume their travels and content creation without risking any repercussions from the FAA.

It's crucial to recognize that disregarding FAA regulations could result in fines. Additionally, even if the content creators haven't yet met the criteria for monetization on platforms like YouTube, the commercial nature of their videos necessitates adherence to Part 107 regulations.

Unless you are being compensated, you can upload all the videos you want without a Part 107. It is the purpose of the flight that determines that. I capture and upload to YouTube for sharing with family and friends, not for any recompense.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I wasn’t aware that the 107 was a requirement for posting something on the tube.
Educate me please.

Only if you make money from it.

If you have a regular non-commercial, non-monetized channel you can post drone videos to your heart's content.

 

[Starz]

Unless you are being compensated

This was my thought and why my question. If you are merely posting a random video that can be viewed by countless others and not receiving or intending to acquire compensation, piece of puzzle part 107 is not necessary.

will enable me to promptly begin sharing content on YouTube.

The op didn’t mention in the first post that compensation was part of the goal, hence my question.

 

[MotoSavy]

Even if you are not making money, doesn't necessary mean that it qualifies as Recreation. You cannot as Recreation do a free shoot for your church a friend who is selling their house. Even though you are not making money, it is no longer considered Recreational.

Same thing applies, for YouTube, evening though you may noy be making money, it is already considered non- recreational and fall under Part 107.

I know that Pilot Institute visits this website. Hopefully they can chime in and clear this. But, I can assure you, that taking videos to put on YouTube is considered Part 107 and cannot be done only with th 44809 Recreational Exception.

Main reason for me taking taking Part 107 with Pilot Institute and doing my FAA exam tomorrow.

Actually, like Arnold says, I'll be back. I will post a video from Pilot Institute about this topic. And if anyone is going to know the right answer, it's Greg. I will post if video of his explaining this.

 

[MotoSavy]

This is an older video from Pilot Institute, but I will find a newer one and the one about the couple that got in trouble for it.

In the mean time here is a link to Pilot Institute Website Article while I find the couple video.


Here, I think this is the same couple that got in trouble or maybe another, but WATCH this Video and this second Video for the complete story and then decide if one needs a Part 107.

I think that at one point Greg, either interviewed them or talked about it and I saw I video about him talking about It, I will continue to look for ir.

 

[Starz]

I believe we have differing views. If there is no compensation and no intent to obtain compensation, I view that as recreational. I know nothing about the pilot institute and probably never will.
I wish you luck on your endeavor and be safe in your travels with the motorcycle.

 

[MotoSavy]

I believe we have differing views. If there is no compensation and no intent to obtain compensation, I view that as recreational. I know nothing about the pilot institute and probably never will.
I wish you luck on your endeavor and be safe in your travels with the motorcycle.

Indeed, we hold differing perspectives: while I adhere to legal considerations, you perceive what aligns with your sense of rightness as law. Nevertheless, I appreciate your well wishes for a safe journey!

 

[michaeldallen1]

This is an older video from Pilot Institute, but I will find a newer one and the one about the couple that got in trouble for it.

In the mean time here is a link to Pilot Institute Website Article while I find the couple video.


Here, I think this is the same couple that got in trouble or maybe another, but WATCH this Video and this second Video for the complete story and then decide if one needs a Part 107.

I think that at one point Greg, either interviewed them or talked about it and I saw I video about him talking about It, I will continue to look for ir.

To MotoSavy... thank you for helping to make it clear for others about recreational requirements. It seems to be a never ending topic. Pilot Institute does explain it the best. Good luck on your exam tomorrow. If you took the Pilot Institute course I will bet you pass! Greg is a great instructor and the course was thorough. I got 93 first try. I was 70 back then (November 2022) and If I could do it so can you. I'm anxious to hear your results.!

 

[MotoSavy]

To MotoSavy... thank you for helping to make it clear for others about recreational requirements. It seems to be a never ending topic. Pilot Institute does explain it the best. Good luck on your exam tomorrow. If you took the Pilot Institute course I will bet you pass! Greg is a great instructor and the course was thorough. I got 93 first try. I was 70 back then (November 2022) and If I could do it so can you. I'm anxious to hear your results.!

Yes I did use the PI course and agree that Greg does a great job teaching us what we need to know. I expect to do well tomorrow in the test.

Thanks!!!

 

[Droning on and on...]

Even if you are not making money, doesn't necessary mean that it qualifies as Recreation. You cannot as Recreation do a free shoot for your church a friend who is selling their house. Even though you are not making money, it is no longer considered Recreational.

Of course. Because it's not.

It's "for hire" if it is used for any commercial purpose, which taking a shot of the church for use on the cover of the weekly bulletin would be. Same with a photo used to sell a house.

The exchange of money is irrelevant. It's the creation of commercial value that is of interest to the gubmint. You can write off your taxes the fair market value of the imagery you donate to the church.

In contrast, any pictures taken by a drone at the church picnic to be shared with everyone like any other pictures taken, can be done without a p107 cert, and can be published in the church bulletin in the story about the church picnic.

It's really not that difficult to sort this out.

 

[msinger]

Here, I think this is the same couple that got in trouble or maybe another, but WATCH this Video and this second Video for the complete story and then decide if one needs a Part 107.

To save everyone 22 minutes, here's the most important line from that video:
"because we make any sort of income from it, it is now classified as a business"

@MotoSavy if you're not posting footage to make money (or help someone else make money), then it would be hard for the FAA to claim you're running a business.

But, we're not the FAA here so, play it safe and ask the FAA directly. Unless you know you're trying to create a business to make money, that 5 minute phone call will no doubt save you a lot of hassle going forward.

And then if your goal is to fly under Part 107 rules because you think it'll be fun or more challenging, then that's a valid angle too I guess. You certainly aren't required to run a business, make money, help people make money, etc. in order to follow Part 107 rules.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I know that Pilot Institute visits this website. Hopefully they can chime in and clear this. But, I can assure you, that taking videos to put on YouTube is considered Part 107 and cannot be done only with th 44809 Recreational Exception.

Yes, the Pilot Institute has addressed this many times. I think maybe you haven't read the articles carefully?

They go to great lengths in every discussion on the subject to emphasize if there is any commercial angle at all to a YT video the pilot must have a p107 cert at the time the video was taken. This includes simply monetizing the channel with YT advertising.

However, PI also addresses the purely recreational motive, and says what several of us have said in response to your claim. In the article, Do You Need a Drone License to Upload Drone Videos on YouTube?

"If you have any intention at all of monetizing your YouTube videos, then you absolutely must get a Part 107 drone license. This is hardly even a gray area. By running ads on your videos earning money through subscriptions or memberships, your videos will definitely fall within the umbrella of commercial use.​

The only option for you to not get a drone license is if you have no plans of monetizing your YouTube videos, now or in the future. The difficulty of this decision is that you never know how popular your video can get once you upload it. If you suddenly get a hundred thousand views on that drone video, the allure of monetizing may make you conveniently forget that you did not have a drone license when the video was shot."​

Somehow you seem to have missed the bold. I recommend reading the entire article. It covers the details quite well, including what the FAA has ruled w.r.t. the matter.

​

 

[Droning on and on...]

Indeed, we hold differing perspectives: while I adhere to legal considerations, you perceive what aligns with your sense of rightness as law. Nevertheless, I appreciate your well wishes for a safe journey!

That was rather insulting. I think you owe @Starz an apology.

You do not "have a different perspective". You are simply wrong.

You are relying on (ironically) YouTube videos from PI, some rather dated.

I'm relying on the FAA ruling on the subject, which PI relied on in the article I linked in post #16.

 

[MARK (LI)]

Unless you are being compensated, you can upload all the videos you want without a Part 107. It is the purpose of the flight that determines that. I capture and upload to YouTube for sharing with family and friends, not for any recompense.

Not necessarily true...for instance...I belong to a Beach Club that asked me to do a video gratis for the website....I have 107, but if I didn't that would be a no go......not for compensation of any kind...but not solely for my personal enjoyment either....without 107, I would not have been able to do it

 

[msinger]

not for compensation of any kind...but not solely for my personal enjoyment either

Well, it would be possible that you only got personal enjoyment out of it. However, the difference is the purpose of taking the flight was not for recreation.

And then I guess one could argue posting videos captured while flying recreational makes YouTube money (which isn't wrong). However, I'm not sure the FAA would take it that far.

 

[Cafguy]

Not necessarily true...for instance...I belong to a Beach Club that asked me to do a video gratis for the website....I have 107, but if I didn't that would be a no go......not for compensation of any kind...but not solely for my personal enjoyment either....without 107, I would not have been able to do it

You are right. If ANYONE around you gains profit from your flight you must have a part 107 You Cannot film your churches party for the internet, You cannot use your drone images to sell your home, You cannot inspect your roof and then use that footage for your roofing inspector, You cannot film videos for charity, and many others one would think you would not need a part 107 for. IF anyone stands to gain a profit from your video you must have a 107 to shoot it.