Part 107 required?

[Nukeboyt]

I've been flying as recreational pilot, and posting some of my photos and videos on my FB page. I like to take pictures at local parks and landmarks. Recently, a local tourism promotion group (think Chamber of Commerce) expressed interest in using some of my photos on their web page. If I give them permission and I don't accept any compensation, will I be OK?

 

[ac0j]

I've been flying as recreational pilot, and posting some of my photos and videos on my FB page. I like to take pictures at local parks and landmarks. Recently, a local tourism promotion group (think Chamber of Commerce) expressed interest in using some of my photos on their web page. If I give them permission and I don't accept any compensation, will I be OK?

I would normally say just do it. Who is ever going to know or care.
BUT, now you posted about it on here, and some 107 holder in your area might turn you in for illegally doing something he could have charged $20 for. LOL!

Seriously, just do it and tell them NO CREDITS in print and to just say by an anonymous photographer.

 

[SoCalDude]

As a Part 107 pilot myself, it is my understanding that yes, you will require a Part 107 certification. Although you do not receive any compensation, your drone images/videos will be used "in furtherance of a business". It's not your business, but someone else's; therefore, a commercial license is required.

 

[ac0j]

Now they are on to you @Nukeboyt ....... Look out!
that is why ONLY part 107 pilots can post images on this forum. LOL!

 

[Nukeboyt]

Now they are on to you @Nukeboyt ....... Look out!

I guess I better start looking into getting a certification!

 

[AeroMirage]

And the debate rolls on...…. and on...…..

 

[ac0j]

I guess I better start looking into getting a certification!

I guess you need to get those pictures and videos off of Facebook. Its a commercial website as well. WAY more visible than your local tourism site! Hurry, one of these 107's is probably already calling the FAA on you!

 

[Just_nick]

And the debate rolls on...…. and on...…..

It's not really a debate: if you do it recreationally, you're fine. The minute you do anything non-recreational, you need a 107. The end.

 

[Nukeboyt]

I guess you need to get those pictures and videos off of Facebook. Its a commercial website as well. WAY more visible than your local tourism site!

I guess that the DJI site would be a no-no too...

 

[ac0j]

I guess that the DJI site would be a no-no too...

Absolutely.

It's not really a debate: if you do it recreationally, you're fine. The minute you do anything non-recreational, you need a 107. The end.

This site generates income, sooooooo......

 

[Nukeboyt]

Absolutely.

This site generates income, sooooooo......

Thank goodness I'm not allowed to upload pictures here....

 

[ac0j]

Funny isnt it?
They do no want you to do this until you give them more money (the FAA) like it makes any difference at all financially to the FAA what you do with your toy drone.
Even funnier is the people that paid the extra $35(?) and took the little airplane quiz now enforce it harder than the FAA.

 

[sar104]

I've been flying as recreational pilot, and posting some of my photos and videos on my FB page. I like to take pictures at local parks and landmarks. Recently, a local tourism promotion group (think Chamber of Commerce) expressed interest in using some of my photos on their web page. If I give them permission and I don't accept any compensation, will I be OK?

There is an important distinction that matters here; it's your intent when you took the photos that counts. If they use photos or videos that you took previously while flying recreationally then that is fine - you can even accept payment. What you cannot do without Part 107 is fly with the intent of taking photos or videos for other than recreational purposes.

And yes - that creates a potential loophole in that you could claim always to be flying recreationally, but it's not going to work long term.

 

[ac0j]

This is SO unenforceable AND it is a complete joke.
I predict the whole "Commercial use" thing to get redefined to package delivery type stuff.
Otherwise, there should soon be a fee and a test required to use a dslr camera for monetary gain.
The FAA has control of airspace and who uses it and little more. Otherwise, you would need a special FAA permit to take pictures out of an airplane window and sell them.
This whole thing is stupid.

 

[sar104]

This is SO unenforceable AND it is a complete joke.
I predict the whole "Commercial use" thing to get redefined to package delivery type stuff.
Otherwise, there should soon be a fee and a test required to use a dslr camera for monetary gain.
The FAA has control of airspace and who uses it and little more. Otherwise, you would need a special FAA permit to take pictures out of an airplane window and sell them.
This whole thing is stupid.

I don't think that your conclusion is justified. The non-recreational requirement doesn't arise from the act of taking photos and videos - it arises from the intent of the flight. It's the flight that is being regulated, not the photography.

 

[ac0j]

I don't think that your conclusion is justified. The non-recreational requirement doesn't arise from the act of taking photos and videos - it arises from the intent of the flight. It's the flight that is being regulated, not the photography.

In short, I am saying that is stupid. The flight, either way is a flight. and the FAA should not have any financial gain exception. That is NOT within their authority, at least it shouldnt be. They should be regulating safety, not peoples ability to earn money.

 

[sar104]

In short, I am saying that is stupid. The flight, either way is a flight. and the FAA should not have any financial gain exception. That is NOT within their authority, at least it shouldnt be. They should be regulating safety, not peoples ability to earn money.

Of course it's within their authority - and is the similar to how they distinguish between recreational and non-recreational pilots.

 

[ac0j]

Of course it's within their authority - and is the similar to how they distinguish between recreational and non-recreational pilots.

How so? I thought that a recreationial pilot didnt have passenger safety to deal with and a commercial is responsible for 10 or more passangers or commercial cargo, has nothing to do with money changing hands, and everything to do with safety. I could be wrong..... I hope not.

 

[sar104]

How so? I thought that a recreationial pilot didnt have passenger safety to deal with and a commercial is responsible for 10 or more passangers or commercial cargo, has nothing to do with money changing hands, and everything to do with safety. I could be wrong..... I hope not.

Sorry to disappoint you - both sport and private pilot licenses are restricted in terms of compensation.

 

[ac0j]

I know you are an intelligent man, and very literal. But can you honestly say you agree with this when it comes to hobby drones? Really? Hardly comparable to commercial piloting as we know it. and the compensation will never be even close.