dirkclod
Well-Known Member
dirkclod
Well-Known Member
Sorry sar was just answering flags and didn’t see your post.
He is but wouldn’t think it mattered
4006448
Well-Known Member
4006448
Well-Known Member
Thanks. Suspected as much, but I can see how it wouldn’t take much to cross the line to being classified ‘commercial’. Otherwise, that would make it tough to post here!
Financial gain isn't the litmus test in determining if a flight is 44809 or 107. It's the intent at the time of flight. At the time of the flight, if it was purely for fun, then it's recreational. Anything else is 107. Keep in mind that 44809 is an exemption carved out under the umbrella of 107.
Australia has a much more enlightened view of using small drones commercially.
See the information here for: Very small, excluded category RPA
Operator accreditation
Get accredited to use your drone for activities other than sport or recreation.
www.casa.gov.au
But putting your videos on Youtube doesn't constitute commercial flying.
No grey area there. If you are doing the flight for fun then you are fine. You can post all you want. The only issue might come if you have a monetized account and post video after video and continue making money on them. You might have a hard time claiming you were flying entirely for fun. If, for instance, you were out flying for fun and by chance you got a video of some huge event and were offered a lot of money for it, you could freely take the money as you had no intention of flying for profit. The fun aspect even drills down to the often discussed "viewing your roof for problems" which requires a 107 license since you are not flying for simple entertainment. If I had a monetized youtube channel that made me any money, even small change, I would not post drone videos there if I did not have a 107. If you flew for two years for pure fun and suddenly got monetized the profits on the previous videos would be just fine as the intention for the flights was purely for fun but after that you would be hard pressed to claim further posts were not motivated by money - at least that is my interpretation of the rules. Bottom line is you can fly and post whatever you want if your intent is simply fun and not related to any kind of work or helping anyone do anything or earning any kind of reward. It simply has to be just for fun and then it's OK.
thats not true because the FAA has already reached out and said you only need that 107 because the channel is monetized
My long reply elsewhere discusses the issue but to put a cap on it I will reiterate that the FAA rules are not about whether you make money on a flight, they are about the intention of the flight. If the intention is purely for your enjoyment and fun you are good to go. You can't do this professionally for a year and claim it is just for fun...but you can make a flight just for fun and then make money off a fight that you had no intention of making money on when you made the flight. There would be a grey area if that kept happening...but on any given flight the rules are about your intention to simply fly for fun and if that's the case you do not need a 107.
It is not about money. If you do work for free, but a company uses it, it is 107.
If your Chanel is just for pleasure and it is never used by anyone for any commercial purpose, you would have an argument.
Do it for your Church, it is Commercial.
Same outcome, but just to clarify:
"Do it for your Church, it is
Why? I don't get that. If his intent is merely for fun I don't think simply putting a flight on YouTube would require a 107. That would imply everyone that puts a drone video on YouTube would require a 107. Nonsense.
No. The other person who replied yes is wrong. At least that's my take. Others can chime in but it would mean everyone that posted to YouTube would require a 107 and I have never heard such a thing. I say nonsense to the idea that anyone posting to YouTube would have to have a 107 license
He was wrong
It's been explained again and again in this thread (and 100 others), but some people just don't get it
Please cite an Official Source stating that ANY YouTube use of aerial DATA in the USA requires Part 107?
While "some" YT use could indeed be Part 107 you can't paint every single YT use with such a broad/wide brush. You are incorrect merely stating YT use requires Part 107.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
Last Week's Most Popular Topics (November 2, 2024)- Started by msinger
- Replies: 0
-
-
Latest version of FlyApp for RC Pro??
- Started by Filmarik
- Replies: 6
-
Is there a 1 click way to delete all photos saved to the smart controller?
- Started by matt@tcdrones
- Replies: 1
-
Forum statistics
