Question about recreational footage and the news

[GrayWaterOps]

As a recreational pilot, am I allowed to freely give footage to a news outlet? They just announced Three Mile Island (TMI) will reopen. I just shot footage over this location last week. Can I give the footage to news outlets?

 

[mavic3usa]

As a recreational pilot, am I allowed to freely give footage to a news outlet? They just announced Three Mile Island (TMI) will reopen. I just shot footage over this location last week. Can I give the footage to news outlets?

My opinion, not legal advice: Yes you can. It's covered under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

 

[GrayWaterOps]

I decided to send it, including that I was a recreational pilot, they were free to use it and I included a screen shot showing my flight was LAANC authorized.

 

[anotherlab]

As a recreational pilot, am I allowed to freely give footage to a news outlet? They just announced Three Mile Island (TMI) will reopen. I just shot footage over this location last week. Can I give the footage to news outlets?

Not a lawyer, but footage you shot previously recreationally can be given to news agencies as long as you are not being compensated.

 

[GFields]

Yes you can. So long as there is no compensation you're fine

 

[Meta4]

As a recreational pilot, am I allowed to freely give footage to a news outlet? They just announced Three Mile Island (TMI) will reopen. I just shot footage over this location last week. Can I give the footage to news outlets?

There's nothing to stop you selling good footage that you've previously shot.

 

[anotherlab]

There's nothing to stop you selling good footage that you've previously shot.

Only if you have the Part 107 license (if you are in the US). If you are flying under hobbyist rules, you can't collect compensation.
Nothing to see here, please move along

 

[msinger]

As a recreational pilot, am I allowed to freely give footage to a news outlet?

I think it's fine as long as you did not fly for the purpose of capturing footage to give to a news outlet. If you have any doubts, it would be best to ask the FAA directly.

(not legal advice)

 

[Meta4]

Only if you have the Part 107 license (if you are in the US). If you are flying under hobbyist rules, you can't collect compensation.

This is a popular misconception and the FAA has directly confirmed what I wrote going back many years.
I addressed this back in 2016.

Incredibly lucky new Phantom owner

Some of the details in this story have deliberately been withheld to shield his identity. About 6 weeks ago I visited a relative. I brought my P3S which I flew around his house for a few minutes, but it was too windy that day to do any real flying. It was enough enough for him, though, so he...

www.phantompilots.com

 

[CadrePilot]

Was the intent of the flight recreational?
That's the only question that matters. After that, you're free to do whatever you like with the imaged/video collected.

 

[Vic Moss]

Yes you can, and you can even be paid for it. The FAA came out about 4 or 5 years ago with a memo allowing new agencies to use drone footage taken by recreational operators. They can even pay for it.

It boils down to the fact that the FAA isn't a commerce agency, they are a safety and education agency. All they care about is what the intent at the time of the flight was. Since it was recreational at the time, you can do what you want with it after the fact.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Yes you can, and you can even be paid for it. The FAA came out about 4 or 5 years ago with a memo allowing new agencies to use drone footage taken by recreational operators. They can even pay for it.

It boils down to the fact that the FAA isn't a commerce agency, they are a safety and education agency. All they care about is what the intent at the time of the flight was. Since it was recreational at the time, you can do what you want with it after the fact.

Where this gets ambiguous is, what constitutes "commercial intent" when flying?

Pretty clear if you're doing it for someone else, that has hired you. Whether you get paid, or get pizza and beer afterwards is irrelevant.

But what about a flight that, were you to hire someone, would be commercial, but you do it yourself? Like, inspect your roof for damage, then fix it yourself. Is that a commercial flight simply because others sell drone roof inspection services?

Wouldn't that make taking pretty pictures with my drone, framing them and hanging them on my wall a commercial activity because others take pretty pictures with their drones, frame them, and sell them to others to hang on their walls? We know this is definitely NOT the case.

Back to the roof. After seeing damage with my drone, purposely flying it to see if there is damage, but instead hire a roofer to fix it, does that transform my flight to find the damage into a commercial flight?

Seems a stretch to me.

 

[Vic Moss]

Where this gets ambiguous is, what constitutes "commercial intent" when flying?

Pretty clear if you're doing it for someone else, that has hired you. Whether you get paid, or get pizza and beer afterwards is irrelevant.

But what about a flight that, were you to hire someone, would be commercial, but you do it yourself? Like, inspect your roof for damage, then fix it yourself. Is that a commercial flight simply because others sell drone roof inspection services?

Wouldn't that make taking pretty pictures with my drone, framing them and hanging them on my wall a commercial activity because others take pretty pictures with their drones, frame them, and sell them to others to hang on their walls? We know this is definitely NOT the case.

Back to the roof. After seeing damage with my drone, purposely flying it to see if there is damage, but instead hire a roofer to fix it, does that transform my flight to find the damage into a commercial flight?

Seems a stretch to me.

No, not really. There is no "commercial intent" anywhere in the language. All that matters is if it was flown "... strictly for recreational purposes" as per §44809 (1). If it was, it wasn't a 107 flight. Folks seem to forget that there are no "commercial regulations" for drone flights in the U.S. For the most part, they are either 107 (the default rules), or §44809, the Recreational Exception to §14 CFR 107.

Commercial intent never enters the picture. No pun intended...

 

[mavic3usa]

I've mentioned my opinion in a different thread many time before but maybe I can mention it again:

All drone flights in the FAA airspace require part 107 in order to be legal. All flights.

However there is an exception where you don't need a part 107.

Qualify for the exception to fly legally without a part 107 or else....get a part 107.

It's that simple.

The question is "What is the exception?"

IMHO, the exception is simple: Fly for recreational purposes or fun is your intent when you take off.

Not doing that, then get a part 107.

Nothing else matters.

Congress gave us this and I'm not a fan and I believe it is highly problematic; however, it's not going to change anytime soon.

 

[Zbip57]

It boils down to the fact that the FAA isn't a commerce agency, they are a safety and education agency. All they care about is what the intent at the time of the flight was. Since it was recreational at the time, you can do what you want with it after the fact.

Everyone knows it's much safer to fly when you're only doing it for fun, right? If someone offers you money for the footage after the flight, that's fine because your "intent" at the time was just for fun.

But if you're offered money BEFORE the flight, or any other compensation beyond pure enjoyment, that's suddenly less safe and worthy of much stricter regulation because, you know, the FAA is all about safety, not commerce.

It's a dumb distinction that makes no sense at all. Why is it safer to fly only for fun?

 

[Vic Moss]

Everyone knows it's much safer to fly when you're only doing it for fun, right? If someone offers you money for the footage after the flight, that's fine because your "intent" at the time was just for fun.

But if you're offered money BEFORE the flight, or any other compensation beyond pure enjoyment, that's suddenly less safe and worthy of much stricter regulation because, you know, the FAA is all about safety, not commerce.

It's a dumb distinction that makes no sense at all. Why is it safer to fly only for fun?

The FAA distinguishes between recreational and commercial in all aspects of aviation. And for sUAS, it's default and recreation as the distinctions.

However, that's also backwards thinking.

When §14 CFR 107 was crafted, it was the default set of sUAS rules, as mentioned above many times. AMA and other r/c hobby groups did not like having their members being required to take a 107 Remote Pilot test to simply fly their r/c planes and helicopters. So we now have the "Recreational Exception".

Money has very little to do with it at all. It's simply one ways a flight doesn't qualify under §44809 (1) as a "strictly for recreational purposes" flight. Again, default or recreational. Those are basically the only two ways to fly for the vast, vast, vast majority of folks.

 

[GrayWaterOps]

Was the intent of the flight recreational?
That's the only question that matters. After that, you're free to do whatever you like with the imaged/video collected.

yes just recreational. Always looking for new places to fly!

 

[Zbip57]

The FAA distinguishes between recreational and commercial in all aspects of [manned] aviation.

Certainly there's a big difference between the responsibility of piloting an airliner carrying hundreds of paying passengers versus solo flying a Cessna 150 for your own recreation. I get that.

When §14 CFR 107 was crafted, it was the default set of sUAS rules, as mentioned above many times. AMA and other r/c hobby groups did not like having their members being required to take a 107 Remote Pilot test to simply fly their r/c planes and helicopters. So we now have the "Recreational Exception".

Yup, I understand that too. AMA members have "safely" flown their scale models for eons under their own club rules at their own club fields, and they justifiably objected to the imposition of stricter onerous FAA rules.

But the fact remains that there now exists two distinct levels of rules, with the FAA acknowledging that it is safely acceptable for amateurs to operate their unmanned aircraft within US airspace under the relaxed set of rules available within the recreational exemptions.

Why are professional non-recreational pilots deemed to be so much more dangerous as to require stricter Part 107 qualifications, when untrained amateur hobbyists can be trusted to fly safely under the recreational exemptions?

Sure, there's a huge difference between flying for fun in your local park versus operating a fleet of hundreds of BVLOS Amazon delivery drones. But we're constantly jumping down people's throats when they ask can I fly for fun off my sailboat, or can I actually use my drone for something useful like checking the top of my sailboat's mast. See: mavicpilots.com/threads/same-restrictions-for-250-g.148376/

It's ridiculous to imply that different regulations deserve to be applied in those two cases "Intent" does not make one case more safe or dangerous than the other.

 

[Droning on and on...]

that's suddenly less safe and worthy of much stricter regulation because, you know, the FAA is all about safety, not commerce.

You feel the regulations that 107 certified pilots fly under are much more strict than recreational pilots?

 

[mavic3usa]

Certainly there's a big difference between the responsibility of piloting an airliner carrying hundreds of paying passengers versus solo flying a Cessna 150 for your own recreation. I get that.


Yup, I understand that too. AMA members have "safely" flown their scale models for eons under their own club rules at their own club fields, and they justifiably objected to the imposition of stricter onerous FAA rules.

But the fact remains that there now exists two distinct levels of rules, with the FAA acknowledging that it is safely acceptable for amateurs to operate their unmanned aircraft within US airspace under the relaxed set of rules available within the recreational exemptions.

Why are professional non-recreational pilots deemed to be so much more dangerous as to require stricter Part 107 qualifications, when untrained amateur hobbyists can be trusted to fly safely under the recreational exemptions?

Sure, there's a huge difference between flying for fun in your local park versus operating a fleet of hundreds of BVLOS Amazon delivery drones. But we're constantly jumping down people's throats when they ask can I fly for fun off my sailboat, or can I actually use my drone for something useful like checking the top of my sailboat's mast. See: mavicpilots.com/threads/same-restrictions-for-250-g.148376/

It's ridiculous to imply that different regulations deserve to be applied in those two cases "Intent" does not make one case more safe or dangerous than the other.

I think it kinda used to be that way but not so much these days. Exactly one of the reasons why I didn't want to get part 107 way back then because there's a lot of restrictions and hurdles that I didn't have to deal with as a recreational pilot. However, a lot has changed. Once upon a time, the recreational pilot was not allowed to fly in controlled airspace (there was no LAANC for us), period. Imagine trying to find Class G to fly or you're grounded. Recreational pilots have no-to-limited access to waivers. Part 107 will get the latest updates before the recreational even going forward *but* recreational pilots never really had a restriction on flying a night. We don't have to maintain lists and flight logs and we aren't exactly subject to spot inspections. Insurance is never required and our equipment doesn't have to be officially maintained. But keep in mind, just because you have a part 107 doesn't mean you cannot choose to fly a "recreational flight" from time to time; you have the choice. Recreational pilots never have the choice to fly under part 107 and in fact, none of the part 107 rules really apply to the recreational pilot. Instead we look to our CBOs for guidance.

Oh and early in the process, the recreational pilot registered himself (not his drones) one time and never entered your drone details into the FAA database. Get your registration number on a sticker, print it out 50 times, apply it to as many recreational drones as you wish without have to add them to the confiscation registration database. And before TRUST, technically there was no formal training required although it was intended, the test wasn't yet created. You could fire up your new drone in the Best Buy parking lot and take off in class G right away.

Alot has changed and it's pretty good overall today (and it works for now) but I still don't like the fact that I cannot get automatic LAANC approval at night. And I'm not happy that apparently we are not top of the list for any improvements with VLOS and OOP. I'm afraid the differences are back to widening instead of narrowing.

So I hear your thoughts and my opinion is the recreational pilots got screwed when we ended up being the "exception" to the default. To me, it would be nice to have two equal (but different tiers) but where it landed is everybody flys each and every individual flight under part 107 unless they meet the exception. That will ultimately prove to be problematic one day but as long as there is mostly zero enforcement, it appears no one really cares which is too bad.