Question about drone pilot license (do i need it?)

[Meta4]

Most monetised Youtube channels only ever earn peanuts and are never going to be considered commercial ventures anyway.

 

[ShadowCat]

I'm having a hard time finding any concrete answers pertaining to this, and talking to people am also getting mixed answers, so was hoping i might be able to get some clarification here.

I work for a company (financial industry) in their media department. I am employed by them 40 hours a week salary, and drone footage is not my main job, just something they want me to do sparingly here and there. They want me to get some aerial drone photography/video of the exterior of our building/campus. Not crowds of people, etc. The drone is also owned by the company, not myself personally.

Do I need to get my drone pilot's license to legally do this? Or would it be covered under "recreational" use? Technically I'm flying it for my company, and only to be used for promotional / web uses. I am not getting paid anything above or beyond my general salary, so it's not like im getting "contracted out" for this.

Any guidance would be great! Let me know if theres any other questions I may not have answered as well! Thanks!

As you are doing it on your company's behalf they are the owner of the footage and are liable for the commercial use of the footage. They have to comply with the CAA rules governing commercial use, as such they will have to obtain a licence for commercial use. the rule does say that any application for commercial gain will require permission.

 

[Fat Pappy]

The easy answer is that if there is any way one could view the intent as other than recreational, get the 107 ticket. It’s not hard and is absolutely relevant to your flight knowledge whether for fun or otherwise. Once you have the 107 ticket, you don’t have to worry about it if your neighbor asks you to look in their gutters or your church wants an areal photo, etc.

 

[theDRONEranger]

Do NOT stay out! Become active and therefore more knowledgeable. You took a major first step by posing an excellent question to the forum. This is exactly how many pilots begin their journey to be the best pilot they know. By asking questions! Nobody on this forum knows 100% about everything DRONE! We all learn something new from time to time. As you search through the forums, keep in mind, you may ask a question at any time.

 

[BigAl07]

As you are doing it on your company's behalf they are the owner of the footage and are liable for the commercial use of the footage. They have to comply with the CAA rules governing commercial use, as such they will have to obtain a licence for commercial use. the rule does say that any application for commercial gain will require permission.

Owner of the footage doesn't matter when dealing with UAS operations and the FAA. It is solely about the Flight and more importantly the INTENT of the Flight. The FAA isn't a Data Management Company but they are tasked with the Safety of Flight in the National Airspace System (NAS) so the nature of the FLIGHT is what is relevant here.

The OPERATOR of the UAS is the person who would need the RPIC certificate regardless if flying for the company or flying for his own non-Recreational endeavor. It falls squarely on the RPIC to be in compliance and if the company is hiring/utilizing a non=Part 107 operator knowingly, they are held liable but at a different level.

 

[Rich QR]

Most monetised Youtube channels only ever earn peanuts and are never going to be considered commercial ventures anyway.

True, but the rules don't require an operation to be commercial to require a Part 107 license. The rules say that you can only fly under the 44809 exception if the flight is "strictly for recreational purposes". Anything not "strictly for recreational purposes" falls under Part 107 and its requirement for a license. Even if it doesn't end up making money.

 

[Meta4]

True, but the rules don't require an operation to be commercial to require a Part 107 license. The rules say that you can only fly under the 44809 exception if the flight is "strictly for recreational purposes". Anything not "strictly for recreational purposes" falls under Part 107 and its requirement for a license. Even if it doesn't end up making money.

That's fine if you want a hardline fundamentalist analysis of an unrealistic hypothetical scenario.
But in the real world, it's not always so easy to be so black and white.
And in the real world, anyone so naive as to think they could make actual money simply by putting their drone videos on Youtube would quickly find out how unrealistic their dreams were.

Who can tell what the operator's intention is when he flew?
Who can tell if the operator did the flying for pleasure but also had a completely unrealistic dream of making money by putting the video on Youtube?
Does it really make any difference?

 

[gajman]

I'm having a hard time finding any concrete answers pertaining to this, and talking to people am also getting mixed answers, so was hoping i might be able to get some clarification here.

I work for a company (financial industry) in their media department. I am employed by them 40 hours a week salary, and drone footage is not my main job, just something they want me to do sparingly here and there. They want me to get some aerial drone photography/video of the exterior of our building/campus. Not crowds of people, etc. The drone is also owned by the company, not myself personally.

Do I need to get my drone pilot's license to legally do this? Or would it be covered under "recreational" use? Technically I'm flying it for my company, and only to be used for promotional / web uses. I am not getting paid anything above or beyond my general salary, so it's not like im getting "contracted out" for this.

Any guidance would be great! Let me know if theres any other questions I may not have answered as well! Thanks!

Yes

 

[Russ Still]

Whether or not you are compensated, you must still operate under Part 107 (and be certificated) if you are using your drone in furtherance of any business or organization.

So, yes. You do need to earn your "license".

 

[theDRONEranger]

Not trying to place more money into various businesses, but . . . I have subscribed to the thought that having a Part 107 is far far better than not! When I fly, almost everything is Part 107. Even should I fly without pay, I still think of it as training and refresher flights.

 

[LA 2020]

I'm having a hard time finding any concrete answers pertaining to this, and talking to people am also getting mixed answers, so was hoping i might be able to get some clarification here.

I work for a company (financial industry) in their media department. I am employed by them 40 hours a week salary, and drone footage is not my main job, just something they want me to do sparingly here and there. They want me to get some aerial drone photography/video of the exterior of our building/campus. Not crowds of people, etc. The drone is also owned by the company, not myself personally.

Do I need to get my drone pilot's license to legally do this? Or would it be covered under "recreational" use? Technically I'm flying it for my company, and only to be used for promotional / web uses. I am not getting paid anything above or beyond my general salary, so it's not like im getting "contracted out" for this.

Any guidance would be great! Let me know if theres any other questions I may not have answered as well! Thanks!

If you get paid for your drone work then yes you need a license. If it's during your regular work you are still getting paid for flying. BTW studying and getting a part 107 license will teach you a lot so it's worth it. It's advisable to use a paid ground school because the test is pretty hard. I used Flight Ready ground school it's only around $90 and is as good as any

 

[drlfc]

Thank you for your response. I understand better now.

Here’s my two cents. I am a Part 107 pilot. So far, I have just flown for fun but having studied for and passed the test I feel as though I am a more knowledgeable pilot. Maybe someday I’ll fly for monetary gain, but for now my day job pays ALOT better. The test is challenging but no where near impossible. Get your license...you’ll be glad you did.
p.s. See if your employer will pay for ground school and the test fee!

 

[baddog]

This is the kind of confused misinformation that is common on the forum whenever this topic comes up.
The FAA isn't concerned with the images you might have created during a flight.
They are concerned with the flying.

Despite the number of people spreading this myth, it's completely false.


The FAA cares nothing about your music or how many millions of $$ you mightmake from it.

Watch this good, well thought out video. This is from a month ago. (

)

The FAA may not be watching but they do want you to fly legally and most of safely.
Other part 107 drone pilots wanting to make money flying their drones legally will turn you in to the FAA or bring your illegal content on YouTube and FB to their attention.

 

[maggior]

Here’s my two cents. I am a Part 107 pilot. So far, I have just flown for fun but having studied for and passed the test I feel as though I am a more knowledgeable pilot. Maybe someday I’ll fly for monetary gain, but for now my day job pays ALOT better. The test is challenging but no where near impossible. Get your license...you’ll be glad you did.
p.s. See if your employer will pay for ground school and the test fee!

I agree...and I do have my part 107 and just did the recurrent test to get my night flying privileges.

 

[Meta4]

Watch this good, well thought out video. This is from a month ago. (

)

I did and despite the video taking such a long time, it's unclear whether they really needed to get their Part 10 or not7.
It's quite possible that they were dealing with an overzealous FAA person who wasn't sure about the rules themselves.
During the video he says "If you intend to put your footage in a video then you need a commercial licence".
That is not true.
Posting videos to Youtube does not mean you need 107.

 

[Fat Pappy]

That is not true.
Posting videos to Youtube does not mean you need 107.

More than a few folks have been grounded by the FAA until they get the 107 license when their only offense was posting flight videos to YouTube without a license. So far, assuming the pilot has stopped the flying until licensed, the FAA has played nice. Sure there were threats of fines, but only if the violations continued. All reports I have seen indicate that the FAA reps were polite and educational.

The fact that you go on and on in a forum does not make you right. This is one area where repeating inaccurate info ad nauseum won’t make it right in the end.

 

[Meta4]

More than a few folks have been grounded by the FAA until they get the 107 license when their only offense was posting flight videos to YouTube without a license.

I find that very hard to believe.

This is one area where repeating inaccurate info ad nauseum won’t make it right in the end.

I agree ... forums are full of myths that get repeated and accepted as true by many.

 

[Fat Pappy]

I find that very hard to believe.

I am not sure you why you find it hard to believe the government would make inane decisions. In addition to the one posted above, here are a couple more. I have seen others as well but don’t have the time right now to dig them up.

I Was Reported To The FAA for Illegal Drone Flying



I was reported to the FAA (what went wrong)

 

[Meta4]

More than a few folks have been grounded by the FAA until they get the 107 license when their only offense was posting flight videos to YouTube without a license.

In addition to the one posted above, here are a couple more. I have seen others as well but don’t have the time right now to dig them up.

1st example ... the alleged breach of regulations was not posting videos on Youtube.
It was unlicensed commercial flight as the video was taken by the FAA officer to have been produced for commercial purposes which would have made the flight commercial.

2nd example ..
This appears to be a case of an over zealous FAA employee acting on an improper understanding of their rules.
Unfortunately this happens sometimes.

Rather than using Youtube videos and forum chatter as an information source, here's an interesting FAA policy document on the subject.

FAA: Home

fsims.faa.gov

Pay particular attention to section 3 and the note that follows it.

3) Inspectors have no authority to direct or suggest that electronic media posted on the Internet must be removed.​

NOTE: Electronic media posted on a video website does not automatically constitute a commercial operation or commercial purpose, or other non-hobby or non-recreational use.​

That misinformation is often repeated in the forum does not make it true.

 

[Fat Pappy]

1st example ... the alleged breach of regulations was not posting videos on Youtube.
It was unlicensed commercial flight as the video was taken by the FAA officer to have been produced for commercial purposes which would have made the flight commercial.

2nd example ..
This appears to be a case of an over zealous FAA employee acting on an improper understanding of their rules.
Unfortunately this happens sometimes.

Rather than using Youtube videos and forum chatter as an information source, here's an interesting FAA policy document on the subject.

FAA: Home

fsims.faa.gov

Pay particular attention to section 3 and the note that follows it.

3) Inspectors have no authority to direct or suggest that electronic media posted on the Internet must be removed.​

NOTE: Electronic media posted on a video website does not automatically constitute a commercial operation or commercial purpose, or other non-hobby or non-recreational use.​

That misinformation is often repeated in the forum does not make it true.

Well, you can do it your way. As for me, I just got the 107 license and don’t have to worry about it.