Photos and videos before 107?

[dljordaneku]

I am currently studying for my 107 and had some ideas on some photos and videos I want to publish after I get my 107. Can I go ahead and take the photos and shoot the videos not and not publish them anywhere and once I get my 107, go ahead and start publishing them? I wanted to get a jump start on my webpage and social media accounts so when I get the license, I have a lot in the bank already. I wouldn't publish any on social media until I get my license and I would make the website hidden until I got the license so on one can see it.

dj

 

[Vic Moss]

You are allowed to use any photo or video taken before you get your 107 once you are a 107.

If you really want to get into the weeds, you're no longer flying for pure "recreational" purposes if you're flying for collecting imagery for your 107 use. But not a living FAA soul would give two wits about that.

You're following the spirit of the law, if not exactly the letter. It's one of the issues with the language of Part 107 and Section 44809, and one of the reasons why having a practical exam for a 107 Cert is impossible.

Fly safe, have fun, take great imagery, and use it once you have your 107.

 

[vindibona1]

You are allowed to use any photo or video taken before you get your 107 once you are a 107.

If you really want to get into the weeds, you're no longer flying for pure "recreational" purposes if you're flying for collecting imagery for your 107 use. But not a living FAA soul would give two wits about that.

You're following the spirit of the law, if not exactly the letter. It's one of the issues with the language of Part 107 and Section 44809, and one of the reasons why having a practical exam for a 107 Cert is impossible.

Fly safe, have fun, take great imagery, and use it once you have your 107.

I'm sorry Vic, but that is not my understanding. The way this has been presented to me is that it is the INTENT AT THE TIME that determines whether it's recreational or commercial. Do you have any documentation to support your interpretation?

Having said that, once one gets the Part 107 flying for commercial purposes and publishing recordings or images is no issue. And one could say that at the time of filming the intent was strictly for recreational purposes and later down the road after gaining Part 107 cert, the creator could have a "hey-wait a minute" idea that it could be used for non-recreational/commercial purposes. But the way I understand the regulation is that it is verboten to fly with intent (at the time) to publish commercially in the future, withholding said publication until one is certified. Now, one cannot get in the mind of the pilot what the purpose of any flight is and what the intent might have been. So while I believe your interpretation of the rule is incorrect, on a practical level it is sort of moot.

 

[Vic Moss]

I'm sorry Vic, but that is not my understanding. The way this has been presented to me is that it is the INTENT AT THE TIME that determines whether it's recreational or commercial. Do you have any documentation to support your interpretation?

Intent at time of flight is what determines 107 v. 44809. But use after you get your 107 is a different subject.

Having said that, once one gets the Part 107 flying for commercial purposes and publishing recordings or images is no issue. And one could say that at the time of filming the intent was strictly for recreational purposes and later down the road after gaining Part 107 cert, the creator could have a "hey-wait a minute" idea that it could be used for non-recreational/commercial purposes. But the way I understand the regulation is that it is verboten to fly with intent (at the time) to publish commercially in the future, withholding said publication until one is certified. Now, one cannot get in the mind of the pilot what the purpose of any flight is and what the intent might have been. So while I believe your interpretation of the rule is incorrect, on a practical level it is sort of moot.

This is why I mentioned letter v. spirit, and why the FAA would not care at all.

You're basically saying the same thing I said.

 

[dljordaneku]

So what you both are saying is that based on the way it is written, I can't but no one would care if I did?

 

[Vic Moss]

So what you both are saying is that based on the way it is written, I can't but no one would care if I did?

Good way to put it.

 

[vindibona1]

Intent at time of flight is what determines 107 v. 44809. But use after you get your 107 is a different subject.

This is why I mentioned letter v. spirit, and why the FAA would not care at all.

You're basically saying the same thing I said.

While in practicality it is splitting hairs I just thought the technicality needed clarity.
There are a lot of things that don't seem to make sense with the FAA regs. I don't remember the particular of the 4/21 rules changes, but at least before then a recreational pilot could fly at night, unencumbered as long as they used anit-collision lighting while a Part 107 pilot (unless he had specific recreational intent- once again getting back to the original discussion) filed for a night flight waiver. That made no sense to me. The other thing that makes no sense to me is an exception to the 250 gram weight rule, IF the extra weight is due to safety equipment such as prop guards or strobe lights and could have had a specific weight exception.

 

[Vic Moss]

While in practicality it is splitting hairs I just thought the technicality needed clarity.
There are a lot of things that don't seem to make sense with the FAA regs. I don't remember the particular of the 4/21 rules changes, but at least before then a recreational pilot could fly at night,

They still can. Nothing in the April rules release had anything to do with recreational rules.

The only change this year was the TRUST implementation. The CBO rule will also be released soon (-ish).

Once the CBO rules are released, those may include the 3SM requirement, but hopefully not. It's unreasonable for recreational pilots to need that.

unencumbered as long as they used anit-collision lighting while a Part 107 pilot (unless he had specific recreational intent- once again getting back to the original discussion) filed for a night flight waiver. That made no sense to me. The other thing that makes no sense to me is an exception to the 250 gram weight rule, IF the extra weight is due to safety equipment such as prop guards or strobe lights and could have had a specific weight exception.

 

[MARK (LI)]

So ...if we have rules...and the FAA doesn't care if you follow them....what is the point of the rules to begin with?

 

[Vic Moss]

So ...if we have rules...and the FAA doesn't care if you follow them....what is the point of the rules to begin with?

The FAA cares very much about rules. But they also understand when some of those rules don't make sense. This is one of those cases.

The point of rules is safety. That's why we need to follow them.

 

[MARK (LI)]

The other thing that makes no sense to me is an exception to the 250 gram weight rule, IF the extra weight is due to safety equipment such as prop guards or strobe lights and could have had a specific weight exception.

Adding weight to a drone intended to fly only 250 grams could easily be negatively influenced by the additional weight ...the center of gravity could be shifted for example, effecting its aerodynamics

 

[MARK (LI)]

The FAA cares very much about rules. But they also understand when some of those rules don't make sense. This is one of those cases.

The point of rules is safety. That's why we need to follow them.

So...which ones do we follow?...just the ones that we like?...or are convenient?...where do you draw the line?

 

[vindibona1]

Adding weight to a drone intended to fly only 250 grams could easily be negatively influenced by the additional weight ...the center of gravity could be shifted for example, effecting its aerodynamics

Like anything, common sense needs to be applied. I typically fly my Mini 2 with leg extensions, a lens hood and then 3 or 4 strobes, depending on if I need top and bottom strobes which comes in at 285-293 grams. I find these accessory items essential. One of the big upgrades of the Mini 2 over the Mini 1 was more powerful motors. And yet the Mini 1 flew just fine with the same accessory configurations. You are correct in as much as weight distribution is important, and the better the even distribution it would seem that the better the performance. The IMU in these things is a wonder as it has the capability of correcting minor discrepancies in weight distribution. Obviously it has its limitations, but I haven't found any issues in the Mini 1 or two, even when a lot of the additional strobe light weight is toward the front.

I believe the assertion that the drone was intended to fly only 250 grams isn't accurate. The 250 gram limitation was to accommodate the restrictions of many governmental entities. Of course the power had to be adequate, but the design not only factored in payload, but wind resistance as well. The Mini 1 that I had flew quite well with a modest amount of accessories flew very well, without any issues whatsoever remained pretty much the same in the Mini 2, which got a significant boost while lightening the overall drone by a few grams. This proves the converse to be true that not only is the Mini 2 designed to power a sub 250 gram drone, but perhaps much more.

 

[vindibona1]

So ...if we have rules...and the FAA doesn't care if you follow them....what is the point of the rules to begin with?

They care. But there is little point trying to investigate small violations unless the case lands in their lap and cannot be ignored. There are a lot of governmental entities today that ignore the laws they are directly in charge of enforcing, even blatantly [I'll stop here on that]. While the FAA rules seem odd at times, because of the obvious safety concerns of millions of people flying in the skies they have to pay attention, but have more important things to worry about than whether or not someone intends to use a "recreationally created" project professionally at some point in time.

 

[vindibona1]

They still can. Nothing in the April rules release had anything to do with recreational rules.

The only change this year was the TRUST implementation. The CBO rule will also be released soon (-ish).

Once the CBO rules are released, those may include the 3SM requirement, but hopefully not. It's unreasonable for recreational pilots to need that.

In addition to TRUST, if memory serves, it has modified the rules regarding flying over people and vehicles and a few other less significant things. I'm old so I forget things recently learned, but took the recurrent 107 test a few weeks ago and did the TRUST thing while on vacation in June.

 

[Lets Fly]

So ...if we have rules...and the FAA doesn't care if you follow them....what is the point of the rules to begin with?

Exactly, especially this rule. We recreational pilots have been flying for years. We register our drone, we follow the rules, we know the NFZs and all the airport rules and restrictions. I always get authorization to fly in restricted zones. I always in my opinion, am flying for fun, that's why I bought the drone in the first place. I fly for the fun of it no matter what I'm photographing. This 107 license ( although pushed as a safety factor) is just for the money. Anyone flying can have an accident, that includes flying for fun or with a 107, either way you're responsible. Being skilled pilots we should be able to do whatever we want with our photos which should include sharing or selling, period. JMHO.

 

[vindibona1]

Exactly, especially this rule. We recreational pilots have been flying for years. We register our drone, we follow the rules, we know the NFZs and all the airport rules and restrictions. I always get authorization to fly in restricted zones. I always in my opinion, am flying for fun, that's why I bought the drone in the first place. I fly for the fun of it no matter what I'm photographing. This 107 license ( although pushed as a safety factor) is just for the money. Anyone flying can have an accident, that includes flying for fun or with a 107, either way you're responsible. Being skilled pilots we should be able to do whatever we want with our photos which should include sharing or selling, period. JMHO.

I tend to agree with your contention about what you should be able to do with photos and videos that we take as recreational pilots. And I for one detest unnecessary governmental over-reach and believe in freedom and personal responsibility. I do disagree with you as the Part 107 is "pushed as a safety factor" as if it isn't the reason for it's existence. We share the same skies as other aircraft. I think the TRUST test is a good beginning [why they require Part 107 pilots to take the test leaves me scratching my head].

 

[sar104]

While in practicality it is splitting hairs I just thought the technicality needed clarity.
There are a lot of things that don't seem to make sense with the FAA regs. I don't remember the particular of the 4/21 rules changes, but at least before then a recreational pilot could fly at night, unencumbered as long as they used anit-collision lighting while a Part 107 pilot (unless he had specific recreational intent- once again getting back to the original discussion) filed for a night flight waiver. That made no sense to me. The other thing that makes no sense to me is an exception to the 250 gram weight rule, IF the extra weight is due to safety equipment such as prop guards or strobe lights and could have had a specific weight exception.

It's actually not splitting hairs, because the question itself is ill-posed and risks confusing the whole subject.

The recreational exemption doesn't regulate the use of photos - it only regulates depending on the intent of the flight:

1. If your flight was recreational ("for fun" in FAA parlance - i.e. definitely not with the intent to take photos for a non-recreational purpose) and conducted under the recreational exemption then subsequent providential use of those photos doesn't change the original intent of the flight. It was legal at the time, and later becoming Part 107 doesn't change anything.
2. If the flight was not actually recreational at the time, then it fell under Part 107 and was illegal for a non-Part 107 pilot. That holds true whether any photos were even taken, let alone used later. And subsequent acquisition of a Part 107 doesn't make it legal either, even though it may effectively cover your tracks if you chose to use such photos.

 

[sar104]

Exactly, especially this rule. We recreational pilots have been flying for years. We register our drone, we follow the rules, we know the NFZs and all the airport rules and restrictions. I always get authorization to fly in restricted zones. I always in my opinion, am flying for fun, that's why I bought the drone in the first place. I fly for the fun of it no matter what I'm photographing. This 107 license ( although pushed as a safety factor) is just for the money. Anyone flying can have an accident, that includes flying for fun or with a 107, either way you're responsible. Being skilled pilots we should be able to do whatever we want with our photos which should include sharing or selling, period. JMHO.

It has nothing to do with the photos - it's about whether or not you are flying recreationally, which has a specific carved-out allowance from the general requirements of Part 107. If you are then you don't need a Part 107 to fly legally. And if you are flying recreationally then you can do whatever you want with your photos. Photos are only relevant to the discussion in that if the purpose of the flight is to obtain them for a non-recreational purpose (especially a business purpose), then by definition the flight was not recreational and you fall under Part 107.

 

[vindibona1]

It's actually not splitting hairs, because the question itself is ill-posed and risks confusing the whole subject.

The recreational exemption doesn't regulate the use of photos - it only regulates depending on the intent of the flight:

1. If your flight was recreational ("for fun" in FAA parlance - i.e. definitely not with the intent to take photos for a non-recreational purpose) and conducted under the recreational exemption then subsequent providential use of those photos doesn't change the original intent of the flight. It was legal at the time, and later becoming Part 107 doesn't change anything.
2. If the flight was not actually recreational at the time, then it fell under Part 107 and was illegal for a non-Part 107 pilot. That holds true whether any photos were even taken, let alone used later. And subsequent acquisition of a Part 107 doesn't make it legal either, even though it may effectively cover your tracks if you chose to use such photos.

I agree 100% with your contentions and interpretation of the rule as written, except I think on a PRACTICAL level it is sort of moot, hence my comment about splitting hairs. A pilot's intent could be 100% recreational at the time of the filming and thus be permitted. I don't understand why there is a distinction about future use. I'll give you a personal example.

AFTER GETTING MY PART 107 (just to be clear for legal purposes) I went to fly downtown Chicago at night, not even knowing what the outcome would be. My purpose was just to fly over the lake and film what I could film. When I got home I looked at the footage and began editing, again to see what I could milk out of the footage. Once completed a friend saw the completed work and said he wanted to use it for his company. And so here's where we begin to mix milk and orange juice... Though a 107 pilot I was flying with recreational intent. Only after the fact did it become commercial. Would the "intent" of flying recreationally technically prohibit me from "converting" it to commercial purposes after the fact? My question is why, if the pilot is flying with pure recreational intent and flying within the rules established for recreational pilots, he could not, after attaining Part 107 certification then use legacy footage commercially? IMO, while we are interpreting the rule to the letter of the law, it is yet another rule/law that seems to make little overall sense.