Rumor of FAA restriction on use of drone photos

[WParm]

I think the key here is "The furtherance of business" aspect that the FAA uses in their designation of a part 107 commercial pilot. I have heard a video (wish I could find it) where a member of the FAA was asked many of these questions. Ultimately, the answer was that even if you don't take any money for your footage or photo, if it is used commercially by another entity for them to make money, it is considered a commercial flight and under the auspices of a Part 107. The gray area is the one that has already been mentioned. "What if you are flying recreationally and then the images are used commercially afterwards?" I would say it would be in the same vein of driving down a highway without knowing what the speed limit is and then getting pulled over for speeding. You didn't plan on speeding, but were still doing so. A police officer may or may not let you off with a warning or may ticket you. It's a chance you are taking if you do fly recreationally and chose to give up an image for commercial use.

As far as a Part 107 flying recreationally is concerned. I would say that once a Part 107 holder, you should "Always follow" the Part 107 rules. (Though, the new recreational rules that have gone in effect make both very similar now and almost not work arguing over)

 

[Thomas B]

Tell it to this guy.

Old news from article written in 2016 with events involved being years earlier. Regs are confusing, but are being changed.

 

[dangerousdavekincaid]

I think it's all a bunch of bunk!!
To much Big Brother over seeing.

 

[AngelAndres]

Tell it to this guy.

Mic drop.

 

[leolazo]

One quick question: I'm American, but live and work in China. I travel extensively within China, and the past year or so I have taken my drone with me. Sometimes I can fly other times I'm not allowed. I have never flown in America (and have no intention on doing so). Would FAA concern itself with me if I sell my drone photos of the places I have visited?

 

[sar104]

Tell it to this guy.

That was different though - he was flying to provide requested coverage of a commercial event, and that was his intent for the flight. He knew full well that the purpose of the flight was to provide photos. That's an example of where someone simply goes too far in the non-recreational direction, and if someone else reports it to the FAA they will investigate.

 

[Gryphon962]

...or maybe you don't want to seek a license from your government just to enjoy your hobby and fly for fun. if someone told you "just go get a license from the government and then play chess on the boardwalk with your friends on a public park bench" so you can be legal, would you do it? we live in free america, government licenses for personal freedoms have to be kept to a minimum. call me stupid and lazy if you want but you get that license, you can bank on it being suspending one day. then where will you be after you've already given permission?

texas is pushing for constitutional carry: no license required to carry a firearm concealed. but the government hands out concealed carry licenses like candy. why do you suppose we are pushing so hard for constitutional carry? the drone community is one of the few that i'm finding is pushing to sign up as many pilots for licenses as they can.

If you accept that a certain percentage of the population of any state are idiots, it makes perfect sense to require licenses and training for activities where others might be harmed. Guns and drones are two good examples of activities where it's best to stop idiots participating. Chess on the boardwalk, not so much.

 

[Bob4131]

That was different though - he was flying to provide requested coverage of a commercial event, and that was his intent for the flight. He knew full well that the purpose of the flight was to provide photos. That's an example of where someone simply goes too far in the non-recreational direction, and if someone else reports it to the FAA they will investigate.

My understanding that the courts really define "the line". Has there been a court ruling in the case of Mical Caterina? Have there been other similar cases that have had court rulings? I am not a lawyer and my opinion is not worth saying, but I haven't heard any court rulings yet just fines. It would be interesting to see how the courts rule in these cases. Anyone know?

 

[Meta4]

Would FAA concern itself with me if I sell my drone photos of the places I have visited?

The FAA are not the who-can-sell-aerial-photographs police.
They don't monitor every aerial photograph sold or used everywhere, looking for unlicensed photographers.
It would be impossible and they have more important things to do.
They also have no jurisdiction over Chinese airspace and aviation.

 

[Starfire3D]

I am so glad my government is not this [Comment Removed by Moderator]

YET

 

[Meta4]

I am so glad my government is not this (posterior orifice) (actual word censored)

Neither is the FAA.
Forum hardliners take this much, much more seriously than the FAA does.
If any drone flyers have been done for unlicensed commercial use since the 107 was introduced, the number is very, very few.

 

[Polkaking]

That was different though - he was flying to provide requested coverage of a commercial event, and that was his intent for the flight. He knew full well that the purpose of the flight was to provide photos. That's an example of where someone simply goes too far in the non-recreational direction, and if someone else reports it to the FAA they will investigate.

I'm wondering if a class project for a college student would qualify as commercial?

 

[sar104]

I'm wondering if a class project for a college student would qualify as commercial?

Well 49 USC 44809 does address that issue, at least for formal educational use:

Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems at Institutions of Higher Education

Pub. L. 115–254, div. B, title III, §350, Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3300 , provided that:

"(a) Educational and Research Purposes.-For the purposes of section 44809 of title 49, United States Code, as added by this Act, a 'recreational purpose' as distinguished in subsection (a)(1) of such section shall include an unmanned aircraft system operated by an institution of higher education for educational or research purposes.​

​

"(b) Updates.-In updating an operational parameter under subsection (d)(1) of such section for unmanned aircraft systems operated by an institution of higher education for educational or research purposes, the Administrator shall consider-​

​

"(1) use of small unmanned aircraft systems and operations at an accredited institution of higher education, for educational or research purposes, as a component of the institution's curricula or research;​

​

"(2) the development of streamlined, risk-based operational approval for unmanned aircraft systems operated by institutions of higher education; and​

​

"(3) the airspace and aircraft operators that may be affected by such operations at the institution of higher education.​

​

"(c) Deadline for Establishment of Procedures and Standards.-Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 5, 2018], the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may establish regulations, procedures, and standards, as necessary, to facilitate the safe operation of unmanned aircraft systems operated by institutions of higher education for educational or research purposes.​

​

"(d) Definitions.-In this section:​

​

"(1) Institution of higher education.-The term 'institution of higher education' has the meaning given to that term by section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).​

​

"(2) Educational or research purposes.-The term 'education or research purposes', with respect to the operation of an unmanned aircraft system by an institution of higher education, includes-​

​

"(A) instruction of students at the institution;​

​

"(B) academic or research related uses of unmanned aircraft systems that have been approved by the institution, including Federal research;​

​

"(C) activities undertaken by the institution as part of research projects, including research projects sponsored by the Federal Government; and​

​

"(D) other academic activities approved by the institution.​

​

"(e) Statutory Construction.-​

​

"(1) Enforcement.-Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue an enforcement action against a person operating any unmanned aircraft who endangers the safety of the national airspace system.​

​

"(2) Regulations and standards.-Nothing in this section prohibits the Administrator from promulgating any rules or standards consistent with maintaining the safety and security of the national airspace system."​

 

[Safet4u]

I am NOT a lawyer! But, I did shake the hand of one once. Just once!

If you flew with the intent of pure fun from start to finish, then it was non commercial. If another person saw the photo and wanted to buy it from you, after the fact, that should be good too! If it becomes habit, I suggest a 107.

"Just once"? -Was that because you lost the hand you shook with? ;-)

 

[clingermac]

James D71 has it right. If you don't want to believe it, that's on you. I have a feeling that a lawyer should look at the rule before the sale rather than defending you after.

 

[Polkaking]

Well 49 USC 44809 does address that issue, at least for formal educational use:

Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems at Institutions of Higher Education

Pub. L. 115–254, div. B, title III, §350, Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3300 , provided that:

"(a) Educational and Research Purposes.-For the purposes of section 44809 of title 49, United States Code, as added by this Act, a 'recreational purpose' as distinguished in subsection (a)(1) of such section shall include an unmanned aircraft system operated by an institution of higher education for educational or research purposes.​

​

"(b) Updates.-In updating an operational parameter under subsection (d)(1) of such section for unmanned aircraft systems operated by an institution of higher education for educational or research purposes, the Administrator shall consider-​

​

"(1) use of small unmanned aircraft systems and operations at an accredited institution of higher education, for educational or research purposes, as a component of the institution's curricula or research;​

​

"(2) the development of streamlined, risk-based operational approval for unmanned aircraft systems operated by institutions of higher education; and​

​

"(3) the airspace and aircraft operators that may be affected by such operations at the institution of higher education.​

​

"(c) Deadline for Establishment of Procedures and Standards.-Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 5, 2018], the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may establish regulations, procedures, and standards, as necessary, to facilitate the safe operation of unmanned aircraft systems operated by institutions of higher education for educational or research purposes.​

​

"(d) Definitions.-In this section:​

​

"(1) Institution of higher education.-The term 'institution of higher education' has the meaning given to that term by section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).​

​

"(2) Educational or research purposes.-The term 'education or research purposes', with respect to the operation of an unmanned aircraft system by an institution of higher education, includes-​

​

"(A) instruction of students at the institution;​

​

"(B) academic or research related uses of unmanned aircraft systems that have been approved by the institution, including Federal research;​

​

"(C) activities undertaken by the institution as part of research projects, including research projects sponsored by the Federal Government; and​

​

"(D) other academic activities approved by the institution.​

​

"(e) Statutory Construction.-​

​

"(1) Enforcement.-Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue an enforcement action against a person operating any unmanned aircraft who endangers the safety of the national airspace system.​

​

"(2) Regulations and standards.-Nothing in this section prohibits the Administrator from promulgating any rules or standards consistent with maintaining the safety and security of the national airspace system."​

Thanks sar104, I was just supposed to shoot some b roll down at the beach for students making a skate board commercial for a class project. These rules seem to be a guide for the school administration's activity on campus.

 

[sar104]

I was just supposed to shoot some b roll down at the beach for students making a skate board commercial for a class project. These rules seem to a guide for the school administration's activity on campus.

Note that it is guidance to the FAA in their rule-making - the current FAA recreational rules don't address educational use as far as I can see.

 

[sar104]

James D71 has it right. If you don't want to believe it, that's on you. I have a feeling that a lawyer should look at the rule before the sale rather than defending you after.

No - he doesn't have it right. And it's not a question of belief - all you need to do is read the current laws, regulations and FAA guidance.

 

[Thomas B]

No - he doesn't have it right. And it's not a question of belief - all you need to do is read the current laws, regulations and FAA guidance.

Or if you remain confused contact the FAA and ask your question of an agent until you feel you do understand their answer.

 

[zebojim]

Regulation and Licensing are (for the most part) a way for larger more established businesses to prevent fair competition. Certain industries like hair dressers and interior decorators have tried to enact laws requiring licensing. This serves only the purpose of prohibiting competition.
I think the Govt should stay out of the business fettering competition and just let people go about their lives without restriction, as long as it does not infringe on other peoples rights. Rules relating to National security and safety are one thing, but telling anyone that they can't sell something they created, just because they don't have a license, is wrong.
To me this is no different than local police requiring a child to have a business license to set up a lemonade stand (or anything else) on their own property.