Part 107 vs recreational rules

[Richiebricker]

I am looking into getting my part 107 in the near future. Until then I have questions about footage I'll be taking tonight.

I am a musician in a band that is playing a gig tonight at a private residence. It is one of a few (out of 50 or so) booked shows that didnt cancel due to covid. This one is going to be pretty unique since we will be set up on a stage on a private shorefront, playing towards to the lake where many boats will be anchored up watching our performance.

Anyways, I'd like to get some video footage with my drone during the performance tonight, but am concerned I might be crossing into that grey area between recreational flight, and commercial flight/purposes.

So my questions are:

• If I only post the footage on my personal pages, would that avoid needing to be 107 licensed?

If no:

• When I do get my 107, can i then post/use footage shot before i get licensed if it falls under 107 scenarios?
• Are there ways to share this type of footage without falling under 107 operations?

Thanks in advance for any insight! Just want to share footage of a pretty unique event happening tonight without violating any rules if possible.

5
Nothing to worry about if your not selling the video and its your band. Im studying for the 107 so I can do just that, Make videos of other bands. Havnt been able to play out anywhere this year so i havnt been able to film my own band but its exciting to think of the video ill get when lock down is over. HAVE YOURSELF A CRAP LOAD OF FUN AND ROCK THATLAKE TILL IT MAKES A SUNAMI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[dawgpilot]

5
Nothing to worry about if your not selling the video and its your band. Im studying for the 107 so I can do just that, Make videos of other bands. Havnt been able to play out anywhere this year so i havnt been able to film my own band but its exciting to think of the video ill get when lock down is over. HAVE YOURSELF A CRAP LOAD OF FUN AND ROCK THATLAKE TILL IT MAKES A SUNAMI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is not correct at all, as has been previously discussed ad nasuium. "Lack of money being exchanged" isn't determinative, since the flight could still be seen as intended in furtherance of the business. (and thus a 107 would be required).

 

[BigAl07]

Nothing to worry about if your not selling the video and its your band.

Speaking as an FAA Safety Team Representative (Charlotte NC Region) I can tell you without a doubt your information is incorrect. I highly suggest you select an alternate study material/guide if what you're using states that is legal.

If you want to get it in writing you can PM me or contact your local FSDO and pose the question to them exactly as you've stated it in this message. Here's a link to the contact information for the FSDO in your area. Just pick the one nearest you and contact them:

Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO) – California

www.faa.gov

Nothing to worry about if your not selling the video and its your band. Im studying for the 107 so I can do just that

I'm curious if you say it's Ok to do this w/o Part 107 when why are you studying to get your Part 107 to do exactly that? Seems like work and effort for nothing (in your incorrect words).


Allen
FAA SAFETY Team Representative (Charlotte NC Reg)
FAA SAFETY Team Drone Pro (Charlotte NC Reg)

 

[HunterKiller]

I’m sad to say that i come hear because I’m a noob and love the advice and learned a ton but one thing is now clear to me. The whole Part 107 is totally unclear and like in law there are different interpretations of it. Anyway I’ve never seen so much difference of opinions in a single thread. If someone actually knows the real law I’d like to know or does every state have a different interpretation of it??? LEO 29 years and not even we know what the laws are on it.

thanks for all the info I’ve learned tho this site is awesome

 

[iaincaradoc]

If someone actually knows the real law I’d like to know or does every state have a different interpretation of it???

Part 107 is Federal regulation under the auspices of the FAA. There really shouldn't be any "interpretations" of Part 107 by the individual states, but several have come up with their own notions of what's controllable on the ground. BigAl07 is one heck of a resource.

 

[Fred Garvin]

...If someone actually knows the real law I’d like to know...

Recreational --> FAA Recreational Ruleset

Commercial --> FAA 14 CFR Part 107

 

[PhantomFandom]

The whole Part 107 is totally unclear and like in law there are different interpretations of it.

These are laws and regulations, written by lawyers and politicians. As such, of course there will always be room for interpretation as the laws are not always written in iron-clad language. However, in many case (here on these forums and out in the world) you will get "opinions" which really have no validity.

does every state have a different interpretation of it???

States, cities, towns, municipalities cannot make up their own laws which supercede FAA regulations. That is quite clear and and beyond reproach, even though many cities and municipalities try to do so (NYC comes to mind).

One can see a perfect example of where there is much contention. The exclusion from Part 107 for recreational pilots states that you can "fly only for recreational purposes". Have a look through the forums to see how often that one is debated. Is this recreational or is that commercial, etc...

 

[HunterKiller]

you will get "opinions" which really have no validity.

Have a look through the forums to see how often that one is debated. Is this recreational or is that commercial, etc...

Awesome I’m glad someone agrees with me. And yes I’ve noticed and the reason for my post lol. Thanks!!

 

[sar104]

I’m sad to say that i come hear because I’m a noob and love the advice and learned a ton but one thing is now clear to me. The whole Part 107 is totally unclear and like in law there are different interpretations of it. Anyway I’ve never seen so much difference of opinions in a single thread. If someone actually knows the real law I’d like to know or does every state have a different interpretation of it??? LEO 29 years and not even we know what the laws are on it.

thanks for all the info I’ve learned tho this site is awesome

No - the law is perfectly clear if you can be bothered to read it, and the fact that ignorant "opinion" is posted on the internet does not make it unclear.

eCFR :: 14 CFR Part 107 -- Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

www.ecfr.gov

 

[lookout]

Here is a part 107 study guide that has been produced.

 

[lookout]

These are laws and regulations, written by lawyers and politicians. As such, of course there will always be room for interpretation as the laws are not always written in iron-clad language. However, in many case (here on these forums and out in the world) you will get "opinions" which really have no validity.


States, cities, towns, municipalities cannot make up their own laws which supercede FAA regulations. That is quite clear and and beyond reproach, even though many cities and municipalities try to do so (NYC comes to mind).

One can see a perfect example of where there is much contention. The exclusion from Part 107 for recreational pilots states that you can "fly only for recreational purposes". Have a look through the forums to see how often that one is debated. Is this recreational or is that commercial, etc...

Yes I do think there are quite the discrepancies.

While part 107 starts with part 61/91 and tries to apply it for how it applies to drones/quadrocopters capable of sharing the same airspace, it's a real paradigm shift for the FAA.

They should have left the hobby R/C guys alone where they were. Now they have to be part of the rest of the mess that is being created.

I was able to convince my city that they had no idea what they were doing ... maybe ... they seemed to have a problem with cut and pasting the federal regs and trying to apply it to city ordinances. Didn't quite make sense.

 

[HunterKiller]

No - the law is perfectly clear if you can be bothered to read it, and the fact that ignorant "opinion" is posted on the internet does not make it unclear.

eCFR :: 14 CFR Part 107 -- Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

www.ecfr.gov

[Comment removed by ADMIN.. Do NOT discuss moderation] Like my mom said “if you have nothing nice to say don’t say it”. Apparently it’s NOT perfectly clear so you’re sarcasm isn’t appreciate. Hope that’s better

 

[sar104]

[Comment removed by ADMIN.. Do NOT discuss moderation] Like my mom said “if you have nothing nice to say don’t say it”. Apparently it’s NOT perfectly clear so you’re sarcasm isn’t appreciate. Hope that’s better

I wasn't being nice or not nice - I was being factual. You wrote:

"The whole Part 107 is totally unclear and like in law there are different interpretations of it. Anyway I’ve never seen so much difference of opinions in a single thread. If someone actually knows the real law I’d like to know or does every state have a different interpretation of it??? LEO 29 years and not even we know what the laws are on it."

Since you had apparently been unable to find it, or more likely had never even looked since even the simplest Google search produces it, I posted the link to the law, in its entirety. Did you still not bother to read it?

 

[JoeGiral]

Sounds like you should be good to me as long as not flying over the crowd.

I was going to mention the same thing. You can't fly over anyone who isn't part of your drone crew.

 

[Chip]

I'm not being compensated for anything I'm doing with the drone tonight.

I'm being compensated for playing music.

Simply trying to capture a cool experience in my musical life that I wish to share later. I just dont know if the FAA would indirectly consider that sharing of the footage as 'commerical' purposes

I appreciate the dialogue either way! Just trying to do the right thing.

It depends exactly what you mean by share later and with who and for what purpose? If it’s to promote or market your band in any way then 107 is likely required. At least that’s my story.

 

[lookout]

It depends exactly what you mean by share later and with who and for what purpose? If it’s to promote or market your band in any way then 107 is likely required. At least that’s my story.

You practically need part 107 just to fly the drone....but then if you do something commercial you already have the part 107. OK...so what separates part 107 from part 107?

 

[BigAl07]

It depends exactly what you mean by share later and with who and for what purpose? If it’s to promote or market your band in any way then 107 is likely required. At least that’s my story.

What happens with the DATA acquired AFTER the flight isn't of interest. It's the INTENT of the flight that matters.

• Did you FLY in order to create DATA for something (anything) other than Recreational Use?
  • A) No the INTENT of the flight was genuinely and purely recreational - No PART 107 needed
  • B) Yes the INTENT of the flight was to acquire DATA to be used for ANYTHING other than recreational - YES Part 107 is required.

Can DATA acquired during a Recreational flight later be sold/distributed in a non-recreational manner? Of course it can. About 3 years ago I took some random pictures of our local lake on a crisp morning. I was there just playing around and snapped a dozen or so of the lake. I was flying purely for fun (recreational) and after I processed the pictures I just stored them on my network drive. About 3 months ago I was contacted by an Ad Agency working for our local Tourism board asking if I had any pictures of the lake worthy of being used in the ad. I went through my archive and stumbled upon the images from 3 years ago. I uploaded some samples to a Cloud Drive and shared the link with the Ad Agency along with pricing. They immediately purchased all of the images for their ad use and issued payment. I sold DATA acquired from a Hobby/Recreational flight and it was 100% legal AND 100% ethical. Now if I was purely a hobbyist and the above "scenario" played out several times it might be more difficult to claim "hobby/recreational" but it can happen legally.

You practically need part 107 just to fly the drone....but then if you do something commercial you already have the part 107. OK...so what separates part 107 from part 107?

huh? I missed something there . . .

 

[Chip]

What happens with the DATA acquired AFTER the flight isn't of interest. It's the INTENT of the flight that matters..l

Yes, I understand and agree. That’s why I focused on the OPs expression of intention to share video with public before the event. That is very different than your example where you had no present intention to use or share video of lake when you made it. If reason for sharing of video with public is to market, advertise or promote the event, the band or the person making video, then 107 is required.

 

[iaincaradoc]

Now if I was purely a hobbyist and the above "scenario" played out several times it might be more difficult to claim "hobby/recreational" but it can happen legally.

Which is exactly what the attorneys have all told me - as a photographer, it'd be *very* difficult for me to make that argument, since potentially everything I shoot may end up somewhere else when it's all said and done.

Which is why I now have a Part 107 ticket. Cheap insurance for me.

 

[BigAl07]

Which is exactly what the attorneys have all told me - as a photographer, it'd be *very* difficult for me to make that argument, since potentially everything I shoot may end up somewhere else when it's all said and done.

Which is why I now have a Part 107 ticket. Cheap insurance for me.

It's a logical choice but for some they will argue with a street sign for the sake of arguing LOL.

Yes, I understand and agree. That’s why I focused on the OPs expression of intention to share video with public before the event. That is very different than your example where you had no present intention to use or share video of lake when you made it. If reason for sharing of video with public is to market, advertise or promote the event, the band or the person making video, then 107 is required.

I agree. Well said