Question regarding use of photos

[BigAl07]

So your saying not for profit is not recreational flying.

I pretty much thought your either fly for fun, or business. Who knew?

Profit is but ONE needle the pops the protective bubble of Hobby/Recreation. If the entire flight doesn't fit 100% inside the Hobby/Recreational bubble then you no longer are afforded "Protection" from Part 107. Once the bubble is popped it's gone until you land and do a "Reset" (metaphorically).

INTENT of the flight is the determining factor. If the flight was intended to provide a service or product for anyone else then it's no longer HOBBY. Hobby/Recreation is something you can't do FOR someone else..... period.

 

[Dan C]

You can fly under recreational rules or Part 107 rules. While it's okay to transact business while flying under Part 107 rules, you're not required to do so.

That still sounds like, oh I dunno, either for profit, or not for profit.

Plus, OP said, "But I don't have a commercial license...", so the 107 thingy is moot.

And if your #2 post was correct, then everyone posting to YouTube unmonetized would be liable because YouTube can make money from it. In fact, every repository online that allows you to upload photos or video "for free" would make you liable if you were correct.

 

[msinger]

That still sounds like, oh I dunno, either for profit, or not for profit.

Well, it's not that simple. There are lots of people flying under Part 107 for non commercial purposes. For example, many people were flying under Part 107 before LAANC was available to hobbyists.

Plus, OP said, "But I don't have a commercial license...", so the 107 thingy is moot.

It's really not moot. If you're not flying under hobbyist rules, then you must follow Part 107 rules.

And if your #2 post was correct, then everyone posting to YouTube unmonetized would be liable because YouTube can make money from it. In fact, every repository online that allows you to upload photos or video "for free" would make you liable if you were correct.

Post #2 is correct if the OP's flight was made for the purpose of taking photos for that business. I'm not sure how YouTube and other similar companies are able to profit off of hobbyists' work. @BigAl07 might know more about that.

 

[jagraphics]

If I make money on aerial video/photos of my local church can I argue I am working for [a] prophet rather than for profit?



Ok, I'll get me coat. I was leaving anyway

 

[Bigbird48]

why does everybody have to make it so difficult, and we still don't know the OP s location, but the simple fact is the rule states the Intent of the flight. Since the op does not have part 107 which he stated we will assume he's in the US and the intent of his flight was recreational, therefore he can do what ever he wants with his pictures with out fear of prosecution THIS TIME

 

[brett8883]

why does everybody have to make it so difficult, and we still don't know the OP s location, but the simple fact is the rule states the Intent of the flight. Since the op does not have part 107 which he stated we will assume he's in the US and the intent of his flight was recreational, therefore he can do what ever he wants with his pictures with out fear of prosecution THIS TIME

 

[Riverjop]

I would just crop out the nearby houses so it’s only the Garden Center and then who would care? Nice photo and it looks like a nice garden Center!

 

[Chip]

If I make money on aerial video/photos of my local church can I argue I am working for [a] prophet rather than for profit?



Ok, I'll get me coat. I was leaving anyway

If you are working for a prophet then ask: will I get in trouble if I give you the flight video and you use it for commercial or other purposes? You have to structure the question to require a simple yes or no or answer or may be subject to interpretation.

 

[Bigbird48]

The question has been answered here multiple times. I think its time to put this thread to Bed

 

[johnmeyer]

Another thread ruined by the "drone police." Why do they think it is their responsibility to play policeman?

I am getting VERY tired of having people rain on everyone's parade rather than trying to help. Is this what people here want??

 

[sar104]

Another thread ruined by the "drone police." Why do they think it is their responsibility to play policeman?

I am getting VERY tired of having people rain on everyone's parade rather than trying to help. Is this what people here want??

No one was "playing policeman". The question asked was about the legality of giving the photos, and so the answers attempted to address that question. Some answers were correct and some were incorrect, but none were an attempt to police anything. So yes - presumably that was what the OP wanted.

 

[GadgetGuy]

OP: Be very careful soliciting free legal advice from an online drone pilot forum. To my knowledge, none of the answers (some correct and some incorrect) about legality were provided by actual lawyers, and lawyers are the only ones who can legally dispense legal advice. Hence, these are all laymens' opinions about what is legal, and they often get it wrong. However, crowd sourced information can often lead to the correct answer, as it did here.

One other factor that wasn't mentioned was what the consequences would likely be, even if it was illegal, which it is not. Practically speaking, the consequences are nil. The FAA's stated primary sUAS goal is education, and not enforcement. Since you have no 107, there is no 107 to take away. So, worst case, you would be informed that you needed a 107 to conduct business with a drone, and warned not to do it again. There would be no fine, and no one is going to jail for giving a free photo to a business shot with a drone under any circumstances! Give away your already recreationally shot photos to anyone you wish, and sell them if you can!

 

[OldGoatMTB]

I would think that any use of the photo for advertising or other purposes would require them to get a release from you, the photographer, if they were crossing their T’s and dotting their I’s. I wonder if putting the photos into the public domain would give you, and them, blanket protection?

 

[jagraphics]

OP: Be very careful soliciting free legal advice from an online drone pilot forum. To my knowledge, none of the answers (some correct and some incorrect) about legality were provided by actual lawyers, and lawyers are the only ones who can legally dispense legal advice. Hence, these are all laymens' opinions about what is legal, and they often get it wrong. However, crowd sourced information can often lead to the correct answer, as it did here.

One other factor that wasn't mentioned was what the consequences would likely be, even if it was illegal, which it is not. Practically speaking, the consequences are nil. The FAA's stated primary sUAS goal is education, and not enforcement. Since you have no 107, there is no 107 to take away. So, worst case, you would be informed that you needed a 107 to conduct business with a drone, and warned not to do it again. There would be no fine, and no one is going to jail for giving a free photo to a business shot with a drone under any circumstances! Give away your already recreationally shot photos to anyone you wish, and sell them if you can!

For free legal advice try the following in court:-

"Your Honour, GadgetGuy [not her real name, some bloke off the internet] said it was OK to use the photos commercially so you can't prossecute me!"
followed by
"I am a Sovereign Citizen! My drone was travelling not flying so it is nothing to do with the FAA"
and
"As the Earth is Flat I was actually taking pictures of the Eifell Tower in Paris so I don't know how the images of the local place got on my memory card..."

Anyone want any free tax/financial advice?
I'm here all week.

 

[mrreddog]

lol..... above.

 

[johnmeyer]

OP: Be very careful soliciting free legal advice from an online drone pilot forum. To my knowledge, none of the answers (some correct and some incorrect) about legality were provided by actual lawyers, and lawyers are the only ones who can legally dispense legal advice. Hence, these are all laymens' opinions about what is legal, and they often get it wrong. However, crowd sourced information can often lead to the correct answer, as it did here.

One other factor that wasn't mentioned was what the consequences would likely be, even if it was illegal, which it is not. Practically speaking, the consequences are nil. The FAA's stated primary sUAS goal is education, and not enforcement. Since you have no 107, there is no 107 to take away. So, worst case, you would be informed that you needed a 107 to conduct business with a drone, and warned not to do it again. There would be no fine, and no one is going to jail for giving a free photo to a business shot with a drone under any circumstances! Give away your already recreationally shot photos to anyone you wish, and sell them if you can!

So, are you a lawyer? If not, by your own definition, why should anyone read and believe what you say?

You clearly state that wrong information was given, but then go on to state that the right information was also given, but you don't indicate which was right and which was wrong.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent the past twenty years licensing media that I've transferred for clients (their own photos and videos) for use in commercial enterprises, including film I've licensed to Sony Pictures, TV stations, etc. So while I cannot provide legal advice for a fee, I have a lot of practical experience.

The OP is doing absolutely nothing that is going to cause a problem.

BTW, everyone should note that anything posted by a real lawyer in this or any other public forum -- or in a newspaper article -- would be totally useless in court, and therefore no different than advice given by a person without that credential. Stand in front of a judge and tell her, "I read this article by Alan Dershowitz (famous lawyer), and acted on it, so I can't possibly have done anything wrong."

Therefore, even if this forum was populated by nothing but lawyers, their advice would be totally useless in keeping you out of trouble.

 

[sar104]

So, given what you said, why should anyone believe you?? You clearly state that wrong information was given, but then go on to state that the right information was also given, but you don't indicate which was right and which was wrong.

Are you a lawyer? If not, by your own definition, why should anyone read and believe what you say?

I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent the past twenty years licensing media that I've transferred for clients (their own photos and videos) for use in commercial enterprises, including film I've licensed to Sony Pictures, TV stations, etc. So while I cannot provide legal advice for a fee, I have a lot of practical experience.

The OP is doing absolutely nothing that is going to cause a problem.

BTW, everyone should note that anything posted by a real lawyer in this or any other public forum -- or in a newspaper article -- would be totally useless in court, and therefore no different than advice given by a person without that credential. Stand in front of a judge and tell her, "I read this article by Alan Dershowitz (famous lawyer), and acted on it, so I can't possibly have done anything wrong."

Therefore, even if this forum was populated by nothing but lawyers, their advice would be totally useless in keeping you out of trouble.

Where are you trying to go with this? First you complained about the "drone police", then you argue that all advice here is useless, and then you proceed to give advice.

And note also that no one here is suggesting that an advice given would constitute any kind of legal defense, so you are conflating totally different things. This is a discussion forum. The law regarding the use of material acquired recreationally is being discussed. Get off your horse.

 

[lilewis]

Wow. Lots of advice here lol

I'm the OP and I live in the US (Connecticut).

After reading the above replies I decided to give the garden center the photos with a note that I prefer they not be used for commercial purposes. They told me they had hired a professional photographer last year to take photos of the business and were happy with the results and wouldn't use mine commercially (I didn't ask if any were from the air).

In any case I think we can close this thread now. Thank you all for your thoughtful and interesting replies.

 

[irpnetgb]

A local garden business has done me many favors over the past decade for which I am grateful.

Recently I started flying a Mavic Pro 2 from a school athletic field when the building and parking lots are empty. The garden business is close to the field and I have some photos of the property that I'd like to give them.

But I don't have a commercial license and am unsure if someday they were to use the photos in their advertising, it would create a problem for me.

Do I have to tell them that they can't be used for commercial purposes ever, or can I just give it to them as I would to any friend without restrictions?

FWIW, my personal take on this if I understand the FAA/CAA ruling correctly is that yes you can give them to the garden centre and they can do whatever they wish with them, commercial or not. The FAA/CAA would only be interested if YOU received payment for the pictures. As you haven't/didn't I don't see a problem. I assume you flew as a hobbyist i.e it was originally a personal pleasure flight. No problem.

 

[lilewis]

FWIW, my personal take on this if I understand the FAA/CAA ruling correctly is that yes you can give them to the garden centre and they can do whatever they wish with them, commercial or not. The FAA/CAA would only be interested if YOU received payment for the pictures. As you haven't/didn't I don't see a problem. I assume you flew as a hobbyist i.e it was originally a personal pleasure flight. No problem.

If anyone were to review my photo/video files there would be no question that I'm a hobbyist. Thanks for your input.