I think Post #2 provides the best answer to the OP. Not sure the five pages that follow add much. As someone who posted, I hope I didn't help muddy the waters.
Last edited:
Rumor of FAA restriction on use of drone photos
- Thread starter WillB
- Start date
What you say is true. Federal authorities bombard and bury you in charges and discovery. You either capitulate or spend lots of money to end up losing anyway. Federal courts and administrative tribunals, are way less predictable and organized than state courts. You will not be treatedly fairly in the traditional sense of the word. The administrative “procedures” will bury you. I’m a retired gov’t lawyer. Just get the ticket or don’t sell the photos.
You have misunderstood the law. There is no prohibition on selling photos. There is a requirement to be licensed to fly non-recreationally, and flying with the intent to take photos or videos to sell is simply one indicator that a flight is not recreational.
It should not matter if it's "recreational" or not. Since when is taking photos or videos something that needs government permission. If you are able to fly legally and safely (hobby or pro) then why should selling your pics EVER be prohibited.... The govt might as well prohibit non-pro photographers from selling their art without a license. You can legally hire your best friend (non-pro) to video your wedding if you want. They don't have to be licensed. I bet many pro wedding photographers would love to see Govt required licensing in their field.
Think of all the "forced business" that would generate for the "pros".
Licensing is ,for the most part, about stifulling fair competition.
Gryphon962
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2019
- Messages
- 194
- Reactions
- 206
You misunderstand the point of Part 107. Its purpose is to license / control all UAS operation. It's the required standard for safe and low risk operations of an aircraft that just happens, among its many uses, to produce photos and video. That is the standard by which you demonstrate you can fly 'legally and safely'. If people don't want to get qualified to meet that standard, then you get to fly 'strictly recreationally' which places limits on where you fly and what you do while flying.
Your example concerns a wedding, which involves crowds of people. Flying at weddings incurs greater risk to those people than flying recreationally at some sportsfield. Thats why it matters - the risk changes.
You still don't get it. It's not the taking photos and videos that is prohibited either. It's that flying non-recreationally requires Part 107. It's the flying that is regulated. The photos and videos are only relevant in that they can indicate that the flight was not recreational. Why is that so hard to understand?
oops... sorry for the double posting....
You said:
"Your example concerns a wedding, which involves crowds of people. Flying at weddings incurs greater risk to those people than flying recreationally at some sportsfield. That's why it matters - the risk changes."
My response:
Sorry for being unclear.... I wasn't talking about FLYING at a wedding. My example was that a rank amature photographer (not a "pro") is allowed to video a wedding (or anything else that is legal), from the ground. (no flying involved)
No Govt license is required for him to do the job. (and it should never be required) It's all private business between the photographer and the client. The point being, that legally the photography part should be separated from the flying part.
You said:
"If people don't want to get qualified to meet that standard, then you get to fly 'strictly recreationally' which places limits on where you fly and what you do while flying."
My response:
I agree, but it doesn't make sense that the pilot who flies recreationally can't make a business from doing so. As long as that person is not flying in a "restricted" area... no license should be required.
You should still be able to profit from anything you do. As long as the flying part is done legally govt should not get involved.
You said:
"It's the required standard for safe and low risk operations of an aircraft that just happens, among its many uses, to produce photos and video. "
My response:
I agree with the first part of this statement. Safety while flying is important.
But if someone is flying within the law, the business they create in doing so should not be prohibited.
I agree with restrictions on certain flying.... (near airports or over crowds)
But I don't agree with restrictions on photography or any other business aspect of it as long as the safety rules for "recreational" flying are followed:
- A realtor for example, should be able to fly (or have a friend fly) and photograph a client's private property without any restrictions. (within safety guidelines of course... not too high, etc).
- A sports person should be able to pay a friend to fly video of him doing his sport, as long as the "recreational" FLYING is within legal guidelines.
The restrictions should be ONLY on when, where, & how one FLIES. Not on the photos taken.
What is created while flying has nothing to do with the safety issues of flying.
That should be a separate "non-issue".
As long as he (or she) flies legally, a photographer should NOT have to be a "pro" (part 107) pilot to be in business for himself.
Govt Licensing should be limited to public safety issues only.
(And some of that is even questionable.)
You said:
"Your example concerns a wedding, which involves crowds of people. Flying at weddings incurs greater risk to those people than flying recreationally at some sportsfield. That's why it matters - the risk changes."
My response:
Sorry for being unclear.... I wasn't talking about FLYING at a wedding. My example was that a rank amature photographer (not a "pro") is allowed to video a wedding (or anything else that is legal), from the ground. (no flying involved)
No Govt license is required for him to do the job. (and it should never be required) It's all private business between the photographer and the client. The point being, that legally the photography part should be separated from the flying part.
You said:
"If people don't want to get qualified to meet that standard, then you get to fly 'strictly recreationally' which places limits on where you fly and what you do while flying."
My response:
I agree, but it doesn't make sense that the pilot who flies recreationally can't make a business from doing so. As long as that person is not flying in a "restricted" area... no license should be required.
You should still be able to profit from anything you do. As long as the flying part is done legally govt should not get involved.
You said:
"It's the required standard for safe and low risk operations of an aircraft that just happens, among its many uses, to produce photos and video. "
My response:
I agree with the first part of this statement. Safety while flying is important.
But if someone is flying within the law, the business they create in doing so should not be prohibited.
I agree with restrictions on certain flying.... (near airports or over crowds)
But I don't agree with restrictions on photography or any other business aspect of it as long as the safety rules for "recreational" flying are followed:
- A realtor for example, should be able to fly (or have a friend fly) and photograph a client's private property without any restrictions. (within safety guidelines of course... not too high, etc).
- A sports person should be able to pay a friend to fly video of him doing his sport, as long as the "recreational" FLYING is within legal guidelines.
The restrictions should be ONLY on when, where, & how one FLIES. Not on the photos taken.
What is created while flying has nothing to do with the safety issues of flying.
That should be a separate "non-issue".
As long as he (or she) flies legally, a photographer should NOT have to be a "pro" (part 107) pilot to be in business for himself.
Govt Licensing should be limited to public safety issues only.
(And some of that is even questionable.)
Amarand
Well-Known Member
This is an interesting debate on what the law/rules "should" be, versus what the law/rules are.
I agree, as a decades-long amateur photographer, I'd like to see the rules for what you can and can't do with your photographs and video lifted/removed. I don't think the FAA should be in the business of asserting what's commercial and what's noncommercial art/photography.
If you have a legal right to fly in an airspace, you should (there's that "should" again) have a legal right to take pictures and video, and then turn around and sell them, regardless of whether you were "flying under" a commercial or a recreational flying section of the FAA rules. "Intent" is such a crappy thing for anyone to have to decide. My "intent" was to send the drone up, have a good time, shoot a few pics. If I get a good one, I should be able to sell it.
When you start getting into actual aircraft, or sUAV that can carry cargo, that's a different story. But my little Mavic Air goes up in the air (legally), and shoots a beautiful sunset (under recreational rules), I believe I should have a legal right to do anything I want with that photograph (or video taken during the flight).
What the current law/FAA rule states, however, is that the intent of the flight matters. So if you are intending to shoot for money, you'd better be under a Part 107, or you're going to get fined. And the fines aren't cheap.
I agree, as a decades-long amateur photographer, I'd like to see the rules for what you can and can't do with your photographs and video lifted/removed. I don't think the FAA should be in the business of asserting what's commercial and what's noncommercial art/photography.
If you have a legal right to fly in an airspace, you should (there's that "should" again) have a legal right to take pictures and video, and then turn around and sell them, regardless of whether you were "flying under" a commercial or a recreational flying section of the FAA rules. "Intent" is such a crappy thing for anyone to have to decide. My "intent" was to send the drone up, have a good time, shoot a few pics. If I get a good one, I should be able to sell it.
When you start getting into actual aircraft, or sUAV that can carry cargo, that's a different story. But my little Mavic Air goes up in the air (legally), and shoots a beautiful sunset (under recreational rules), I believe I should have a legal right to do anything I want with that photograph (or video taken during the flight).
What the current law/FAA rule states, however, is that the intent of the flight matters. So if you are intending to shoot for money, you'd better be under a Part 107, or you're going to get fined. And the fines aren't cheap.
If you really were flying under recreational rules (i.e. flying just for fun) then you can indeed do whatever you want with that photo or video.
Gryphon962
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2019
- Messages
- 194
- Reactions
- 206
We discuss this often, and your point above is the one that many seem to misunderstand. The law (in full here) does not say that the intent of the flight matters. The law defines how all operations using UAS of under 55 pounds shall be conducted. It doesn't mention the word 'commercial' or 'intent'. Its the whole deal, so if you want to fly UAS, then Part 107 certification and rules are the norm for any type of flight.
At this present time, there is other legislation that says if you want to fly 'strictly recreationally' then, subject to a more restrictive set of rules, you can fly (for now). But we know those rules are changing, and a test, registration, and who knows what else, is about to tighten the net further.
I would argue that while the law doesn't use the word "intent", it is implicit in the applicability conditions for recreational flight. Part 101 has not yet been rewritten but it is unlikely that the applicability wording will change, and it says:
§101.41 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes rules governing the operation of a model aircraft (or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft) that meets all of the following conditions as set forth in section 336 of Public Law 112-95:
(a) The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
101.41 (a) clearly refers to intent, since one has to choose to take the recreational exemption that Part 101 offers from Part 107 - it's not automatic.
These excerpts are from a memorandum written by the FAA Assistant Chief Counsel of Regulations for the manager of the Unmanned Aircraft Integration Office before section 336 was superseded. Nothing in the new rules would affect these interpretations, other than the section number change. Though written in response to news media, they would be applicable to other entities. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...iams-afs-80 - (2015) legal interpretation.pdf
Thank you for posting the current law. While it is the law, I have one major contention with it....
(I'm posting the last paragraph here so it will be easier to read.)
"However, if the individual is conducting the operation with the primary intention of obtaining pictures, videos, or other information to sell, then the operation is commercial in nature and not part of a hobby or recreational activity. As noted above, such operations currently would require an authorization from the FAA. Evidence that may indicate an individual's true intentions in conducting an operation may include the frequency with which pictures, videos, or other information collected using an unmanned aircraft is later resold. Operations that frequently result in pictures, videos, or other information that is sold to a third party may indicate that the operation is in fact commercial in nature notwithstanding the individual's claim of a hobby or recreational purpose. The FAA would have to consider each case on its own merits. "
My first contention is the word "intention". The moment we are judged by our "intention" is the beginning of the "thought police".
It is subjective and therefore impossible to judge fairly.
Also, since when, in America, is it wrong to "commercialize" your skills and talents? Even if you are a hobby pilot and fly within those limitations, it is unconstitutional to restrict your freedom and right to make a profit from it. Not to mention the question, "What the H... does the FAA have to do with regulating business?"
Again... The ONLY thing they should be concerned with is safety. NOT how private citizens do business! (as long as we do not infringe on the constitutional rights of others)
It may be the "Law", but it is wrong and it is un-constitutional.
Just my not so humble opinion.
The following is titled:
"The Law Of The Land"
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
(I'm posting the last paragraph here so it will be easier to read.)
"However, if the individual is conducting the operation with the primary intention of obtaining pictures, videos, or other information to sell, then the operation is commercial in nature and not part of a hobby or recreational activity. As noted above, such operations currently would require an authorization from the FAA. Evidence that may indicate an individual's true intentions in conducting an operation may include the frequency with which pictures, videos, or other information collected using an unmanned aircraft is later resold. Operations that frequently result in pictures, videos, or other information that is sold to a third party may indicate that the operation is in fact commercial in nature notwithstanding the individual's claim of a hobby or recreational purpose. The FAA would have to consider each case on its own merits. "
My first contention is the word "intention". The moment we are judged by our "intention" is the beginning of the "thought police".
It is subjective and therefore impossible to judge fairly.
Also, since when, in America, is it wrong to "commercialize" your skills and talents? Even if you are a hobby pilot and fly within those limitations, it is unconstitutional to restrict your freedom and right to make a profit from it. Not to mention the question, "What the H... does the FAA have to do with regulating business?"
Again... The ONLY thing they should be concerned with is safety. NOT how private citizens do business! (as long as we do not infringe on the constitutional rights of others)
It may be the "Law", but it is wrong and it is un-constitutional.
Just my not so humble opinion.
The following is titled:
"The Law Of The Land"
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
Last edited:
Ours doesn't, and I'm in a decently sized city. Most of the Realtors around here just take photos with their phones, and some just buy drones and do the shots themselves.
You kind of have this backwards. Congress, and the FAA, cut hobbyists a break by not requiring them to undergo the training and regulation required for civil sUAS operations. That "break" is only valid if they are flying purely recreationally. So if you want to be able to conduct unfettered sUAS operations then no problem - you need Part 107 certification. And if you think that everyone should be able to fly for any purpose then that would be fine to - Congress could remove the exemption for hobbyists and require everyone to take Part 107. Would that be better?
I agree with you on what the law currently states.
It is what it is.
But, I think it is wrong.
And, I don't think it is Constitutional for them to deny a so called "hobbyist" the right to profit from his hobby by requiring him to jump through bureaucratic hoops. The business side of this has nothing to do with safety.
The FAA should limit their concern to "safety in the air" and not "our right to do business".
It's not far (in principal) from the FAA trying to tell a neighborhood kid that he can't start a lawn mowing business without a license, "because his mower might throw out a rock and kill someone." As if having a license would make it any safer.
And they are not doing us a favor by denying us our rights. We must fight for them or lose them.
It is what it is.
But, I think it is wrong.
And, I don't think it is Constitutional for them to deny a so called "hobbyist" the right to profit from his hobby by requiring him to jump through bureaucratic hoops. The business side of this has nothing to do with safety.
The FAA should limit their concern to "safety in the air" and not "our right to do business".
It's not far (in principal) from the FAA trying to tell a neighborhood kid that he can't start a lawn mowing business without a license, "because his mower might throw out a rock and kill someone." As if having a license would make it any safer.
And they are not doing us a favor by denying us our rights. We must fight for them or lose them.
Well if you are simply complaining about any regulation of sUAS operations then that's different - I thought that you were complaining about recreational pilots not being able to do everything that Part 107 pilots can do. If that's the case then the conversation is pointless - we are not going to be permitted to fly autonomous UAVs in the NAS without some safety regulation by the FAA, and it would be negligent of Congress if they permitted that.
And you have no "right" to fly your UAV in the NAS any more than you have a right to fly a manned aircraft in the NAS.
Brockrock
Well-Known Member
I could not agree more! That’s what it really boils down to.
Similar threads
