Selling newsworthy video

[Bebopperoo]

Hi all, I recently filmed a robbery by a ten man gang, using guns and explosives, on my mini 3 pro.

Can anyone advise how I sell this footage to news stations, without phoning each station?

I am aware of several sites that resell footage, but Reuters and similar large news agencies appear useless and unresponsive.
Not a pro filmer, but have several drone videos of local events of remarkable newsworthiness which might be of public interest. This is exceptional footage, however, of almost ten minutes, and not often seen.
Any advice appreciated.

 

[sportsphotos]

Hi all, I recently filmed a robbery by a ten man gang, using guns and explosives, on my mini 3 pro.

Can anyone advise how I sell this footage to news stations, without phoning each station?

I am aware of several sites that resell footage, but Reuters and similar large news agencies appear useless and unresponsive.
Not a pro filmer, but have several drone videos of local events of remarkable newsworthiness which might be of public interest. This is exceptional footage, however, of almost ten minutes, and not often seen.
Any advice appreciated.

Whatever you do, don’t wait around too long then it’s old news and not worth anything.

 

[mavic3usa]

Post a short but relevant clip of your content on Youtube (make sure it is YT friendly) and put your contact info in the description inviting enquiries.

 

[Cafguy]

Can anyone advise how I sell this footage to news stations, without phoning each station?

You gotta pound the pavement! Call, Go up to the door and pound, Anything!
Sitting at home hoping they will somehow know you have this video won't get you far

 

[Feek]

Hi all, I recently filmed a robbery by a ten man gang, using guns and explosives, on my mini 3 pro

Did you call the police while it was happening?

 

[mavic3usa]

Did you call the police while it was happening?

fyi OP is in South Africa.

 

[Feek]

fyi OP is in South Africa.

I know. They do have police there.

 

[buddb55]

I posted a drone video of a house fire on my YouTube channel and the news channels found me.

 

[Kuiper Denizen]

In the United States drone use for “compensation” (be it cash, a plate of cookies, or just a pat on the back, if the F.A.A. sees that as a “value,” requires, by law, a Part 107 professional license.

I would think that in any country, witnesses of a crime are expected to pass on any evidence of that crime to law enforcement, be it required by law or by one’s commitment to being a good citizen!

I’m somewhat dismayed that there are those who don’t have that immediate reaction!

 

[Feek]

a Part 107 professional license.

Going totally off topic.

I was surprised how easy that 107 test is. I keep reading about it and thought I'd have a look and see what it involves. I'm not in the USA so I don't need it but I found a site doing practise tests, did one and got 85% without any study whatsoever. A lot of it is just common sense, understanding what some terms mean and the rest is chart reading.

(Having said that, I have had an interest in aviation for years so probably a bit of an advantage over someone with zero knowledge whatsoever)

 

[mavic3usa]

In the United States drone use for “compensation” (be it cash, a plate of cookies, or just a pat on the back, if the F.A.A. sees that as a “value,” requires, by law, a Part 107 professional license.

I would think that in any country, witnesses of a crime are expected to pass on any evidence of that crime to law enforcement, be it required by law or by one’s commitment to being a good citizen!

I’m somewhat dismayed that there are those who don’t have that immediate reaction!

Unfortunately that isn't correct. The FAA standard is closer to take off your drone flying in support of promoting a business. The OP could have been just flying around having fun, spotted a crime in progress, captured it. Likely no such law in his country but even in the US, it would be legal for the recreational pilot to sell his footage in this type of scenario. You don't need a "professional license" to record a crime in progress and share it with the world. The 1st amendment protects this right. When he took off to fly, at that point, he started his flight having fun meaning he didn't lift off to go and observe a crime in progress. The criminals would rejoice if drone footage couldn't be used of them committing crimes if the drone pilot didn't have a part 107.

The 4th amendment says the footage belongs to the drone pilot and nobody else, and that includes [not] the government. He has no obligation to pass his footage along, donate it, sell it, or in any way assist. There may be rare cases where it is required by law and certainly if a valid warrant was issued but I am a good citizen and I would only consider providing my footage should law enforcement ask nicely; I have no plans to volunteer my footage to anyone and I believe the vast majority of Americans would agree with me (for reasons we can't go into here). Besides, according to you I need to have a part 107 to share it, right? That applies to Youtube, TikTok, and the police, right?

FYI, where do I draw the line? National Security.

 

[Kuiper Denizen]

Unfortunately that isn't correct. The FAA standard is closer to take off your drone flying in support of promoting a business. The OP could have been just flying around having fun, spotted a crime in progress, captured it. Likely no such law in his country but even in the US, it would be legal for the recreational pilot to sell his footage in this type of scenario. You don't need a "professional license" to record a crime in progress and share it with the world. The 1st amendment protects this right. When he took off to fly, at that point, he started his flight having fun meaning he didn't lift off to go and observe a crime in progress. The criminals would rejoice if drone footage couldn't be used of them committing crimes if the drone pilot didn't have a part 107.

The 4th amendment says the footage belongs to the drone pilot and nobody else, and that includes [not] the government. He has no obligation to pass his footage along, donate it, sell it, or in any way assist. There may be rare cases where it is required by law and certainly if a valid warrant was issued but I am a good citizen and I would only consider providing my footage should law enforcement ask nicely; I have no plans to volunteer my footage to anyone and I believe the vast majority of Americans would agree with me (for reasons we can't go into here). Besides, according to you I need to have a part 107 to share it, right? That applies to Youtube, TikTok, and the police, right?

FYI, where do I draw the line? National Security.

I remember when the F.A.A. was going after non Part 107 licensed drone operators for posting videos on YouTube because content displayed there was awarding monetary remuneration for the number of visits these videos were earning.

If that has changed I missed the waiving of that requirement.

 

[mavic3usa]

I remember when the F.A.A. was going after non Part 107 licensed drone operators for posting videos on YouTube because content displayed there was awarding monetary remuneration for the number of visits these videos were earning.

If that has changed I missed the waiving of that requirement.

FAA never went after anyone. FAA doesn't have any financial data, they don't have your W-2 or W-4 or Google's...they have no idea who is getting paid. You just can't click on a YT video on your computer and then decide someone is getting "awarded." Maybe that video belongs to someone else. Is there a law that says an ordinary citizen can't post video captured from a drone by somebody else unless they themselves have a part 107. FAA rules and regulations under part 107 is about operating drone flights in the US airspace, it's not about videos, making money, or platform technology.

Instead the FAA was responding to rats that reported on other fellow youtubers who were more successful than themselves so they went complaining to the FAA and said these guys don't have a part 107. Chances are the people who reported them not only didn't have a part 107 but also they likely didn't even feature drone video on their own channel. They were just jealous. So like the snitches they are, they called the FAA and the FAA has to respond to those reports and they asked the questions and the targets were nice enough to respond and learn from the experience, it was an education. In those few cases, it's really easy to see if someone is using a drone to promote their business; they usually don't try to hide it and have likely discussed it openly on their channel. It's one thing to inform someone they need to get a part 107 so they can comply with the law but another to call the FAA hoping to shut down their channel which didn't happen.

There's no requirement to wave. You need a part 107 license to do commercial work with your drone and that includes promoting your business. If you take off with your drone and you intend to fly for recreational purposes and have fun, you don't need a part 107. Otherwise you do. That's the end of it; that's all there is. There's nothing about "remunerations", platforms, clicks, or visits. It's unenforceable, it's vague, and it's unconstitutional and I cannot wait until a viable case goes to court to challenge this so we can settle it once and for all.

 

[Kuiper Denizen]

FAA never went after anyone. FAA doesn't have any financial data, they don't have your W-2 or W-4 or Google's...they have no idea who is getting paid. You just can't click on a YT video on your computer and then decide someone is getting "awarded." Maybe that video belongs to someone else. Is there a law that says an ordinary citizen can't post video captured from a drone by somebody else unless they themselves have a part 107. FAA rules and regulations under part 107 is about operating drone flights in the US airspace, it's not about videos, making money, or platform technology.

Instead the FAA was responding to rats that reported on other fellow youtubers who were more successful than themselves so they went complaining to the FAA and said these guys don't have a part 107. Chances are the people who reported them not only didn't have a part 107 but also they likely didn't even feature drone video on their own channel. They were just jealous. So like the snitches they are, they called the FAA and the FAA has to respond to those reports and they asked the questions and the targets were nice enough to respond and learn from the experience, it was an education. In those few cases, it's really easy to see if someone is using a drone to promote their business; they usually don't try to hide it and have likely discussed it openly on their channel. It's one thing to inform someone they need to get a part 107 so they can comply with the law but another to call the FAA hoping to shut down their channel which didn't happen.

There's no requirement to wave. You need a part 107 license to do commercial work with your drone and that includes promoting your business. If you take off with your drone and you intend to fly for recreational purposes and have fun, you don't need a part 107. Otherwise you do. That's the end of it; that's all there is. There's nothing about "remunerations", platforms, clicks, or visits. It's unenforceable, it's vague, and it's unconstitutional and I cannot wait until a viable case goes to court to challenge this so we can settle it once and for all.

I’m perplexed, mavic3usa,

You say the F.A.A. never went after anyone, but then you explain that when people, apparently jealous of some YouTube posters’ successes, complained to the F.A.A., the FA.A. investigated and the “targets were nice enough to respond and learn from the experience, it was an education.”

What was the education if not that they couldn’t post videos for pay without a Part 107 license? This was a big issue on YouTube several years back. I know I didn’t dream it.

You go on to say, “You need a part 107 license to do commercial work with your drone and that includes promoting your business. If you take off with your drone and you intend to fly for recreational purposes and have fun, you don't need a part 107. Otherwise you do.”

It doesn’t matter if one is promoting his/her own business. If there is a commercial interest, some exchange of value for a product, in flying a drone, then the drone operator - whether an employee, owner, or vendor - must be properly licensed.

You’ve essentially said that at the end of your post, but the ambiguity of your initial remarks can only lead to confusion on the part of many who are new to the undertaking.

There is a distinct line between flying for recreation and flying for remuneration. The latter requires a Part 107 license.

 

[mavic3usa]

I’m perplexed, mavic3usa,

You say the F.A.A. never went after anyone, but then you explain that when people, apparently jealous of some YouTube posters’ successes, complained to the F.A.A., the FA.A. investigated and the “targets were nice enough to respond and learn from the experience, it was an education.”

What was the education if not that they couldn’t post videos for pay without a Part 107 license? This was a big issue on YouTube several years back. I know I didn’t dream it.

You go on to say, “You need a part 107 license to do commercial work with your drone and that includes promoting your business. If you take off with your drone and you intend to fly for recreational purposes and have fun, you don't need a part 107. Otherwise you do.”

It doesn’t matter if one is promoting his/her own business. If there is a commercial interest, some exchange of value for a product, in flying a drone, then the drone operator - whether an employee, owner, or vendor - must be properly licensed.

You’ve essentially said that at the end of your post, but the ambiguity of your initial remarks can only lead to confusion on the part of many who are new to the undertaking.

There is a distinct line between flying for recreation and flying for remuneration. The latter requires a Part 107 license.

That's quite a bit to respond to, gonna take me awhile. In the meantime, could you please post the FAA law or rule/regulation that covers this? Just want to make sure we are on the same page and looking at the same verbiage. In the meantime, I'll post my response to each of the points you make here while I am looking for some of the videos that might help explain some things. I suspect we agree on alot more than we disagree with, probably just a bit of crosstalk. Thanks.

 

[mavic3usa]

I’m perplexed, mavic3usa,

You say the F.A.A. never went after anyone, but then you explain that when people, apparently jealous of some YouTube posters’ successes, complained to the F.A.A., the FA.A. investigated and the “targets were nice enough to respond and learn from the experience, it was an education.”

What was the education if not that they couldn’t post videos for pay without a Part 107 license? This was a big issue on YouTube several years back. I know I didn’t dream it.

You go on to say, “You need a part 107 license to do commercial work with your drone and that includes promoting your business. If you take off with your drone and you intend to fly for recreational purposes and have fun, you don't need a part 107. Otherwise you do.”

It doesn’t matter if one is promoting his/her own business. If there is a commercial interest, some exchange of value for a product, in flying a drone, then the drone operator - whether an employee, owner, or vendor - must be properly licensed.

You’ve essentially said that at the end of your post, but the ambiguity of your initial remarks can only lead to confusion on the part of many who are new to the undertaking.

There is a distinct line between flying for recreation and flying for remuneration. The latter requires a Part 107 license.

Here's an example video to review; not my video, I don't know them, not friends of mine. Please keep in mind several things: We don't know the whole story, just parts of it. They express a lot of their opinions, not necessarily the facts so their take on things especially how they answer Q&A. Most of what they do is for entertainment so there may be some drama or fair amount of exaggeration. This happened several years ago.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[mavic3usa]

And this may be where some of the [inaccurate] rumors may have come from:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Meta4]

I remember when the F.A.A. was going after non Part 107 licensed drone operators for posting videos on YouTube because content displayed there was awarding monetary remuneration for the number of visits these videos were earning.

If that has changed I missed the waiving of that requirement.

Yes .. you missed it.

The FAA & Youtube story is often mentioned but is not true.
It comes from way back in the drone stone age (March 2015) when one FAA official overstepped his authority.
The FAA clarified the situation soon after.
Read all about it here: FAA Admits That They Shouldn't Be Ordering People To Delete Drone Videos

 

[Kuiper Denizen]

Yes .. you missed it.

The FAA & Youtube story is often mentioned but is not true.
It comes from way back in the drone stone age (March 2015) when one FAA official overstepped his authority.
The FAA clarified the situation soon after.
Read all about it here: FAA Admits That They Shouldn't Be Ordering People To Delete Drone Videos

Thanks for the link to this article , Meta4. As I read this, though, it seems this was a decision clarifying that “end users of a video” could not be forced to stop using drone created videos to promote their businesses. It doesn’t mention that the drone video creator is also free of any obligation under Part 107.

The actions taken against YouTube drone videos that I am familiar with are much more recent than the referenced date of March, 2015. Those alleged actions were taken against drone video creators who posted their own videos on YouTube where visits were counted and could earn money from advertisers.

I realize that I could have been duped into believing all this, but there was a lot of online discussion about the ramifications of this “ruling” by the F.A.A. It moved a lot of drones, myself included, to work on getting Part 107 licensing.

It could be that we’ve both gotten the same stick by the right end. I’ve been saying that those creating drone videos had to be licensed appropriately to not be doing something wrong. You are arguing that the end user isn’t doing anything wrong in using them.

Are we both right in our view of this issue?

 

[Meta4]

Thanks for the link to this article , Meta4. As I read this, though, it seems this was a decision clarifying that “end users of a video” could not be forced to stop using drone created videos to promote their businesses. It doesn’t mention that the drone video creator is also free of any obligation under Part 107.

The article was from well before Part 107 came into existence.
Back then you had to have an actual airplane licence to legally carry out commercial drone photography !

Section C3 of this FAA document explains that the FAA recognises that just putting videos on Youtube did not constitute commercial flight.

Dynamic Regulatory System

drs.faa.gov