Sale of photo/video

[SW_Drone_Guy]

I'm new to this forum and drones in general. I have been under the impression that selling photos or videos taken from a drone required a Part 107 certification. Period.

After telling someone on on this forum:
"I did run across some outdated info online, including in some of the YouTube videos, but the FAA website should have the latest info and that's where I always check facts."

I then proceeded to repeat info that I'd heard or seen somewhere online - other than the FAA website. In other words, I was guilty of NOT checking my facts!

I was very politely corrected:

Your comments are accurate, with one clarification. When flying under the recreational exception, subsequent use/sale of the "nice photo of a resort" is allowed - provided that the intent of the flight at the time was purely recreational.

OK, I am willing to accept this statement as correct... (thank you) But I don't feel like I can repeat it (yet). "Intent" is not USUALLY the yardstick used by US law...

If possible, would someone post a link to that (or any opposing) interpretation by the FAA? My brain is pivoting, I'm adjusting to this (to me) new info and I'd like to see the FAA's written stance on the subject. I admit, this may be stubbornness on my part - I'd like to be correct in the future. I've got a couple of friends interested in flying drones and asking me questions. Whenever possible, I answer their questions with links to the relevant answers...

If this has been hashed and re-hashed in the forums, I apologize for bringing it up again, but a simple link will answer my question...
Thanks in advance.

 

[Davros007]

I think, for example, if you happened to click a few pics of a Bigfoot whilst off skiing, they be hard-pressed to bust you for selling them? I guess the ‘intent’ part comes in when you go out each day to the same place and get more pics and sell them too, or if you advertise you are on a Bigfoot hunting expedition then sell the pics.
Apologies no link!

 

[eaglesurfing]

If you want to start to make money then yes you are required to get a commercial license.

Aircraft Registration – Unmanned Aircraft (UA)

www.faa.gov

 

[eaglesurfing]

FAADroneZone

faadronezone.faa.gov

 

[Meta4]

If this has been hashed and re-hashed in the forums

It's a topic that comes up frequently.
There have been two threads on this already this week.

I'm new to this forum and drones in general. I have been under the impression that selling photos or videos taken from a drone required a Part 107 certification. Period.

The issue is that people often make the same assumption that you have.
But the FAA have no rules about selling aerial imagery.
They have rules about flying and the closest they come to selling photos would be rules about commercial aviation.
That's flying for a client rather than your own recreation, flying to carry out a task for someone else.

To the FAA there is no offence of selling photos.
The offence would be unlicensed commercial flying.

You can fly and you can take photos on a recreational flight and it's completely legal.
Lots of people do it for their own pleasure.
If you did and weeks or months later, were lucky enough to be approached by someone wanting to pay $$ to acquire one of your aerial images, the flying was already done legally in the past.
If you sold the image, that isn't going to make a previous completed legal flight now an illegal flight.

You didn't do the flying for a third party, you did it for yourself.

But every time this comes up there are plenty of members that cannot accept this and will argue as you did in your initial post and there will probably be some join in soon.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

It’s a moot point the FAA has never prosecuted anybody over pictures that did not
Depict illegal activities.
Those companies that might hire you will require your part 107.

So no worries.

Having said that if you were to ask the FAA they would say 107 is required.

 

[Vic Moss]

I honestly don't see why there is ANY confusion at all on this. It's all black and white, there is ZERO grey.

Intent of flight is the determining factor on whether or not it is a 107 flight for a 349 fight. That's it. Completely.

And yes, you are most certainly allowed to sell imagery taken during a 349 flight. All of this comes from a memo published on 5/5/2015. This interpretation is 5 years old. You'd think it would be a done deal now. But some people just don't want to understand the rules.

Read the document. It is specifically about new agencies using drone imagery from non-commercial pilots. It was non-333 flights in 2015, and it applies to 107/349 flights now.

You can find the memo here: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...iams-AFS-80 - (2015) Legal Interpretation.pdf

The first sentence of section III states it all. "Whether an individual taking pictures or videos or gathering other information using a model aircraft under the section 336 carve-out could later sell those pictures, videos, or other information would depend on the person's original intentions in conducting the operation." Section 349 now replaces section 336, and 14 CFR Part 107 replaces 333 Exemptions.

That's it, the final answer. This debate should have ended in 2015.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

I honestly don't see why there is ANY confusion at all on this. It's all black and white, there is ZERO grey.

Intent of flight is the determining factor on whether or not it is a 107 flight for a 349 fight. That's it. Completely.

And yes, you are most certainly allowed to sell imagery taken during a 349 flight. All of this comes from a memo published on 5/5/2015. This interpretation is 5 years old. You'd think it would be a done deal now. But some people just don't want to understand the rules.

Read the document. It is specifically about new agencies using drone imagery from non-commercial pilots. It was non-333 flights in 2015, and it applies to 107/349 flights now.

You can find the memo here: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2015/Williams-AFS-80 - (2015) Legal Interpretation.pdf

The first sentence of section III states it all. "Whether an individual taking pictures or videos or gathering other information using a model aircraft under the section 336 carve-out could later sell those pictures, videos, or other information would depend on the person's original intentions in conducting the operation." Section 349 now replaces section 336, and 14 CFR Part 107 replaces 333 Exemptions.

That's it, the final answer. This debate should have ended in 2015.

According the the FAA:

The memo you attached references section 336 of Pub. L. 112-95. Section 336 was repealed and replaced in its entirety by Section 349 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254). The Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft established by section 349 is codified at 49 U.S.C. 44809. The Exception allows a person to operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the FAA if they adhere to a set of limitations. The first limitation is that the aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.

Any operation that is not strictly recreational is governed under Part 107, and thus requires a Remote Pilot Certificate. You mentioned intent... Someone that sells pictures is not conducting a recreational operation. If the original intent was indeed recreational, there is nothing that precludes the operator from selling those photos when they are later operating under Part 107, but they certainly will need a Remote Pilot Certificate to conduct non-recreational operations.



Hopefully this provides some clarity.. You certainly may reach out to AGC directly for more specific clarification and any questions about AGC memos specifically: Regions and Centers.

Feel free to email them [email protected] and check for yourself.

 

[dawgpilot]

It’s a moot point the FAA has never prosecuted anybody over pictures that did not
Depict illegal activities.
Those companies that might hire you will require your part 107.

So no worries.

Having said that if you were to ask the FAA they would say 107 is required.

The FAA has prosecuted real estate agents for employing non-107 pilots to take real estate photos for them.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

The FAA has prosecuted real estate agents for employing non-107 pilots to take real estate photos for them.

That’s not the same as taking them yourself it’s very clear-cut when you hire somebody.
Hiring somebody is for sure 107
Using them for commercial purposes is also very clear-cut.

 

[Vic Moss]

According the the FAA:

The memo you attached references section 336 of Pub. L. 112-95. Section 336 was repealed and replaced in its entirety by Section 349 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254). The Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft established by section 349 is codified at 49 U.S.C. 44809. The Exception allows a person to operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the FAA if they adhere to a set of limitations. The first limitation is that the aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.

Any operation that is not strictly recreational is governed under Part 107, and thus requires a Remote Pilot Certificate. You mentioned intent... Someone that sells pictures is not conducting a recreational operation. If the original intent was indeed recreational, there is nothing that precludes the operator from selling those photos when they are later operating under Part 107, but they certainly will need a Remote Pilot Certificate to conduct non-recreational operations.



Hopefully this provides some clarity.. You certainly may reach out to AGC directly for more specific clarification and any questions about AGC memos specifically: Regions and Centers.

Feel free to email them [email protected] and check for yourself.

Also good info. But that memo is still in effect until it's pulled from their library.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

Also good info. But that memo is still in effect until it's pulled from their library.

Just because they don’t update their website doesn’t mean it’s still in effect please ask for yourself if you don’t believe me.

 

[Vic Moss]

Just because they don’t update their website doesn’t mean it’s still in effect please ask for yourself if you don’t believe me.

It is in effect, I've asked. That is the bases of the intent aspect of selling imagery. The actual differences in section number is irrelevant. And that's what they go off of until that memo is updated or another ruling comes out.

It is simply stating that intent determines flight. That's the memo to refer to when anyone has any questions. That's why it's still there.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

It is in effect, I've asked. That is the bases of the intent aspect of selling imagery. The actual differences in section number is irrelevant. And that's what they go off of until that memo is updated or another ruling comes out.

It is simply stating that intent determines flight. That's the memo to refer to when anyone has any questions. That's why it's still there.

Well according to the individual from the FAA that answered my email it’s not.
Since you don’t say who you ask or when perhaps you should try asking again.
You wouldn’t want to give incorrect advice out.

 

[Vic Moss]

Well according to the individual from the FAA that answered my email it’s not.
Since you don’t say who you ask or when perhaps you should try asking again.
You wouldn’t want to give incorrect advice out.

Difference of opinion for the most part. While the section numbers are different, the intent of the memo remains. It is in effect. It just has old numbers attached.

And that email does not say the memo is not in effect, it simply says that 349 replaced 336, which is exactly what I've been saying all along.

It is also wrong in that is states, "there is nothing that precludes the operator from selling those photos when they are later operating under Part 107".

That part is flat out wrong. You do not need to have a 107 to sell imagery taken under recreational rules. The folks that answer that email address, while always well meaning, don't always have the facts straight.

My contacts not only have the facts straight, they write the ACs that are the official interpretations.

 

[SW_Drone_Guy]

Well, I asked and I think I've been answered. 'Nough said.
I didn't realize my question raised a touchy subject or I wouldn't have raised it and I'm now satisfied with the answers provided by all of you.
Thank you, peace to us all and happy flying.

attached: Wild horse and her colt - Mt Charleston, NV

 

[Meta4]

Well according to the individual from the FAA that answered my email it’s not.

According the the FAA:
...
Any operation that is not strictly recreational is governed under Part 107, and thus requires a Remote Pilot Certificate. You mentioned intent... Someone that sells pictures is not conducting a recreational operation. If the original intent was indeed recreational, there is nothing that precludes the operator from selling those photos when they are later operating under Part 107, but they certainly will need a Remote Pilot Certificate to conduct non-recreational operations.

The FAA person who made that reply avoided answering the question that was asked and answered a different question.
He was answering the question he thought you were asking or the question he was more comfortable answering.
You should have pushed him to answer the question that you actually asked.

 

[Meta4]

The FAA has prosecuted real estate agents for employing non-107 pilots to take real estate photos for them.

Is there anything available to show that this actually happened and wasn't just a rumour?

 

[Deleted member 114292]

The FAA person who made that reply avoided answering the question that was asked and answered a different question.
He was answering the question he thought you were asking or the question he was more comfortable answering.
You should have pushed him to answer the question that you actually asked.

Is there anything available to prove he answered the wrong question ? Or did you just make that up?

 

[Meta4]

Is there anything available to prove he answered the wrong question ? Or did you just make that up?

There's the question you asked and there's his answer (which avoids answering what you asked).
Do you need something else?

The question was: Can a recreational flyer sell an image taken on a previous recreational flight?
The question he answered was: Can a recreational flyer sell previously shot images later if he gets a 107?