Photos and videos before 107?

[Cymruflyer]

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

Draw it between upholding the "Spirit" and blatant abuse. You know the difference, so does everyone else, regardless of what they may say.

 

[MARK (LI)]

I just believe that any rules are for everyone...and for the rules to work, you can't allow exceptions...it sets precedent and makes it difficult to enforce other regs

 

[sar104]

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.

I'm obviously still not managing to convey how simple this really is.

If you were flying under Part 107 then your intent was irrelevant; it would only have mattered if you had chosen to fly under the recreational exemption, which is pretty pointless now. You can fly for any (legal) purpose you want, including recreationally, under Part 107 rules.

So in your example you omitted the only thing that mattered - which rules were you flying under?

Only after the fact did it become commercial.

No - the intent cannot change after the flight.

Would the "intent" of flying recreationally technically prohibit me from "converting" it to commercial purposes after the fact?

Again - it has nothing to do with the photos/videos - they are only relevant if they demonstrate that you were not flying recreationally at the time, for example if you had a commercial purpose in mind for them when you shot them.

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?

If the intent was recreational at the time then the pilot doesn't need Part 107 to use them ex post facto. And if the intent was not recreational at the time then it was the flight that was illegal, not the subsequent use of the material, and later obtaining Part 107 certification doesn't magically make that previous illegal flight suddenly legal.

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.

It is cumbersome, because it is constrained by the recreational exemption that was foisted on the FAA by Congress, but it makes perfect sense otherwise.

 

[Vic Moss]

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.

OOP and night flight rules changes were only for 107 pilots. It did nothing for recreational owners. The only change to 44809 was for the TRUST.

 

[vindibona1]

OOP and night flight rules changes were only for 107 pilots. It did nothing for recreational owners. The only change to 44809 was for the TRUST.

Yes. I was citing the general rules changes of 4/21. Perhaps I wasn't clear.