New Handle/Name

[msinger]

IF anyone stands to gain a profit from your video you must have a 107 to shoot it

The intent of the flight is what really matters.

For example, I could shoot a video on a recreational flight and then someone could use it for a commercial purpose some months later. Since my flight was not taken for that commercial purpose, it wouldn't matter that I wasn't flying under Part 107 rules at the time.

 

[MotoSavy]

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.

Apologies to @Starz if I inadvertently caused offense. I want to express my unwavering confidence in my understanding of the law.

I acknowledge that interpretations of FAA rules can vary among individuals.

Tomorrow, I plan to obtain Part 107 certification, ensuring that my actions align with legal requirements for my intended activities.

As adults, we each reserve the right to interpret matters according to our own perspectives.

Let's agree to put this issue to rest; there's no need to prolong the discussion further.

 

[msinger]

Tomorrow, I plan to obtain Part 107 certification, ensuring that my actions align with legal requirements for my intended activities

Can you tell us more about your intended activity? Are you looking to fly recreationally (just for fun)? Or are you trying to start a business?

I think most of us (all?) here are assuming your plan is to fly for fun.

As adults, we each reserve the right to interpret matters according to our own perspectives

This is not one of those cases where you get to act like an adult and follow the rules as you think they are/should be written. FAA Part 107 isn't open for interpretation.

 

[MotoSavy]

Can you tell us more about your intended activity? Are you looking to fly recreationally (just for fun)? Or are you trying to start a business?

I think most of us (all?) here are assuming your plan is to fly for fun.



This is not one of those cases where you get to act like an adult and follow the rules as you think they are/should be written. FAA Part 107 isn't open for interpretation.

I am the original starter of this post. In there I clearly state my purpose for getting Part 107 and I very confident with my interpretation of the law and part 107.

I think we have all said enough, so let’s stop beating the horse.

Once again my apologies if I offended anyone.

 

[msinger]

I am the original starter of this post. In there I clearly state my purpose for getting Part 107 and I very confident with my interpretation of the law and part 107.

Yes, I did see your original post.

You said "my initial focus will be on sharing aerial footage of motorcycle adventures and the scenic destinations visited during rides". That sounds like recreational flying -- unless you left out the commercial part of your venture.

You then followed up with you believe that "possessing a Part 107 certification is mandatory if you intend to create videos for platforms like YouTube or any social media platform". Can you link us directly to the FAA source that states everyone who posts videos on YouTube must possess a Part 107 certification?

Lastly, why would you want to interpret a law based on a story you saw on YouTube? If you cannot find that same information on the FAA's website, then is it possible your interpretation might be incorrect?

FWIW, I'm just here reading along and discussing since this is why we have great forums like this. Also, I think it's great to discuss important topics like this in detail as many other people will come along and read this later. We don't want to intentionally spread misinformation.

 

[MotoSavy]

Anytime a person doesn’t follow all the rules of 49 USC 44809, they are automatically considered to be flying under Part 107 rules.

Rule 1 states 'The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.' I've heard from people that know much more than me that Recreation Purposes only includes the joy of just flying the drone. Anything outside of the joy of just flying the drone automatically falls under Part 107.

I elect to believe what they have explained from the extensive subject knowledge they have, their years of experience and the direct continuous communications they have with the FAA.

The rules below are right from the House of Representatives website. For those that want to see the entire text go Here.

​

§44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft​

(a) In General.-Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations:

(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.

(2) The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization's set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.

(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.

(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.

(5) In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.

(8) The aircraft is registered and marked in accordance with chapter 441 of this title and proof of registration is made available to the Administrator or a designee of the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.

 

[Cafguy]

Not wanting to beat a dead horse BUT Who told you that you must posses a 107 to make video's!?
Making videos or taking photographs is a recreational activity and the government does NOT require a special license to film the world around you.
IF your YouTube site is Monetized you must be 107.
If you are filming and flying- and by doing that you are Either -1. Saving someone money with your photos ( such as making real estate photos without paying a 107 pilot to do it) OR 2. You are generating any sort of profit To include money for charity- you must be 107.
Now if you have a business and your business has a youtube channel that is NOT monetized Well Make and post all the videos you want no 107 required BUT if you place advertisement on that same video or you try to review or sell a product then YES you need a part 107. I think this about sums it up in my understanding. Someone PLEASE correct me if I have stated something wrong.
Thanks.

 

[msinger]

Anytime a person doesn’t follow all the rules of 49 USC 44809, they are automatically considered to be flying under Part 107 rules.

Agreed.

Rule 1 states 'The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.' I've heard from people that know much more than me that Recreation Purposes only includes the joy of just flying the drone. Anything outside of the joy of just flying the drone automatically falls under Part 107.

Sharing your "aerial footage of motorcycle adventures and the scenic destinations visited during rides" could be a recreational purpose if you're not also doing things like generating revenue, promoting a business, or helping someone else further a business. For example, on Drone Safety Day last April, the FAA suggested people go and do just that in this PDF.

On the topic of "posting on YouTube can never be recreational", this email response from the FAA states otherwise.

I elect to believe what they have explained from the extensive subject knowledge they have, their years of experience and the direct continuous communications they have with the FAA

Unless you told these people you're interested in starting a business and/or generating revenue with this new venture, it sounds like you've been given bad advice. It would be best to contact the UAS Support Center instead.

 

[Vic Moss]

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

Not quite a black and white answer.

You can fly and take imagery to post to social media without a 107. But it depends on your intent with the content.

Example 1: Suppose you are a train enthusiast and you and your friends share social media content to show your adventures. If you're doing it to simply share your passion and not posting it to gain views and monetize, that is purely a recreational flight and you don't need your 107. Same if all you're doing it posting fun imagery to share with family and friends.

Example 2: Suppose you are flying and taking imagery to share to social media to increase viewers and/or monetize your account. That is a 107 operation. Or if you are using it to show off your business (roofers, landscapers, etc. do this), then you also need your 107. The example couple above had a monetized YT channel and were using drones as part of their video making workflow. Even though their channel wasn't about drones, they used them for their business. Thus they needed their 107. Same with anyone who reviews drones, or uses drones to review other things. That, among other things, is what got Philly Drone Life in trouble.

Hopefully this helps clear the air.

 

[Droning on and on...]

To clarify, money, profit, compensation, etc. are irrelevant.

The determining factor is the purpose. If there is a commercial use, it requires p107. Shooting an orbit that's used in a church promotional video is commercial. Shooting an orbit during the Easter brunch to upload to YT and share with the congregation is not. No different than Ella May's photo album shared link of the same event.

The letter from the FAA UAS Support Center linked above by @msinger really says it all, very succinctly and clearly. Everyone in this thread should read it.

@MotoSavy, your stubborn refusal to acknowledge your error here is puzzling. You say you want to follow the law, yet the facts presented here that your interpretation is wrong are overwhelming. It's hard to understand why you would insist that something you heard from someone is more credible to you than a letter from an FAA official.

Regardless, getting your 107 certainly won't hurt, and gives you options you don't have flying recreationally.

Best of luck on your exam!

 

[Zbip57]

§44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft [...]
(1) recreational purposes.
(2) community-based organization's set of safety guidelines
(3) visual line of sight
(4) gives way to any manned aircraft.
(5) complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.
(6) not more than 400 feet above ground level
(7) aeronautical knowledge and safety test
(8) aircraft is registered and marked

All of these requirements to qualify for the exemption are logical with respect to operating safely, EXCEPT the first one.

If you agree to operate your drone safely within the requirements numbered 2 to 8, what possible difference does it make whether you're intending to take pictures of your church just for fun, or with the intent of having those same photos published within the church bulletin?

How would SAFETY be affected if #1 "recreational" was removed from the list?

I could understand if the IRS insisted on this distinction between fun vs business solely for purposes of wanting to collect taxes on any potential business income. That would at least make some sense.

But why this fascination from the FAA on what you do for recreation or not, or whether you choose to post videos on YouTube for fun or for money? That has nothing to do with safety.

Every recreational pilot is trusted to operate safely under that simple set of rules. Why is the same flight then suddenly deemed unsafe and worthy of much more stringent regulation if conducted for actual benefit to anyone, other than for fun?

Sure, if you have a valid need to operate outside of those rules then additional requirements should apply, i.e. outside of the CBO safety guidelines, or beyond VLOS, or higher than 400ft AGL.

There is no difference whatsoever in the safety of a flight conducted while;

1. Flying around just for fun recording video, and later discovering a good shot of your church, then sharing that shot with your pastor.
2. Flying around for fun recording video, and later discovering a good shot of your church, then sharing that shot with your pastor, who then includes it in the church publication.
3. Flying around for fun recording video, and later discovering a good shot of your church, then sharing that shot with your pastor knowing he'll include it in the church publication.
4. Flying around for fun recording video, then deliberately stopping to take a good shot of your church to later share with your pastor.
5. Flying around for fun recording video, then deliberately stopping to take a good shot of your church to share with your pastor, who then includes it in the church publication.
6. Flying around for fun recording video, and deliberately stopping to take a good shot of your church to share with your pastor knowing he'll include it in the church publication.
7. Deliberately flying to take a shot of your church for your own fun hobby photo collection.
8. Deliberately flying to take a shot of your church for your own hobby photo, but later decide to share it with your pastor.
9. Deliberately flying to take a shot of your church for your own hobby photo, but later decide to share it with your pastor., who then posts it in the church bulletin.
10. Deliberately flying to take a shot of your church for your own hobby photo, but later decide to share it with your pastor, knowing he'll include it in the church bulletin.
11. Deliberately flying to take a shot of your church for your own hobby photo, but later decide to share it with your pastor, knowing he'll include it in the church bulletin, and he pays you for the photo.
12. Deliberately flying to take a shot of your church to share with your pastor, because you know he'll include it in the church bulletin and pay for the photo.

As long as each flight is conducted under the same safety rules, 400ft AGL and within VLOS etc, what's the difference?

We've been told over and over again that the intent is what matters most to the FAA. It's the number one item on the list of requirements for the exemption. If the intent of the flight is solely for your own enjoyment, that's recreational. If photography or videography is your personal hobby, that's all good and recreational. If you share your photos or videos (without compensation other than for your own joy), that's still considered recreational.

Even if anyone else subsequently benefits from the use of your photos or videos, it doesn't matter as long as your original intent in conducting the flight was for your recreational hobby. But if you intend to fly for the benefit of anyone else (or even solely your own benefit) suddenly that's non-recreational and deserving of an entirely different set of rules.

Either the skies are safe enough to accommodate pilots operating under limited exemptions, or full Part 107 certification is required to operate safely. Why are some pilots trusted to operate safely under lesser rules based solely on the distinction of whether you're having fun or not?

 

[msinger]

But why this fascination from the FAA on what you do for recreation or not, or whether you choose to post videos on YouTube for fun or for money? That has nothing to do with safety.

ChatGPT has a good take on that:

The FAA Part 107 regulation is essential for individuals who want to operate drones commercially, i.e., to make money from their drone operations in the United States. Here's why it's needed and its relation to safely flying a drone:

1) Safety: One of the primary reasons for the FAA Part 107 regulation is to ensure that drone operations in the national airspace are conducted safely. By requiring commercial drone operators to pass a knowledge test and obtain a Remote Pilot Certificate, the FAA ensures that these operators have a fundamental understanding of airspace rules and regulations, weather impacts on drone operations, drone loading and performance, and emergency procedures. This knowledge is crucial for minimizing the risk of accidents or incidents that could endanger other aircraft, people, or property on the ground.

2) Standardization: The regulation establishes a standardized framework for all commercial drone operations, ensuring that all operators meet minimum safety and operational standards. This helps in maintaining a level of professionalism within the drone industry and ensures that all commercial operators are aware of their responsibilities and the legal requirements for operating drones.

3) Integration into National Airspace: As drones become more prevalent in commercial applications, it's essential to integrate them safely into the national airspace alongside manned aircraft. Part 107 provides the rules and guidelines for doing so, addressing concerns such as avoiding restricted or sensitive airspace, flying at safe altitudes, and maintaining visual line-of-sight with the drone. This integration is vital for preventing interference with manned aircraft operations and ensuring the safety of all airspace users.

4) Liability and Accountability: By requiring commercial drone operators to be certified, the FAA creates a system of accountability. Operators are more likely to follow regulations and safety guidelines if they know they are being monitored and can be held accountable for their actions. This also provides a framework for liability in case of accidents, ensuring that operators are aware of the insurance and liability implications of their drone operations.

5) Promoting Responsible Innovation: While the FAA wants to encourage innovation and the commercial use of drones, it also needs to ensure that this is done responsibly and safely. Part 107 strikes a balance between enabling commercial opportunities and ensuring that the technology is used in a manner that does not compromise public safety.

In summary, FAA Part 107 is not just a bureaucratic hurdle for making money with drones; it's a comprehensive set of rules designed to ensure that commercial drone operations are conducted safely, responsibly, and with due consideration for the safety of the national airspace and all its users.

 

[GFields]

@MotoSavy I would recommend contacting the FAA directly for clarification on the matter.