Selling photos taken before I passed my 107 exam

[BAGraphics]

And the letter of the law is about flying for commercial purposes, not selling old photos.

Selling photos is a commercial purpose. With my past photo businesses, I paid taxes on my sales and will continue to do so in the future. From what I read, hear and see from those who are photographers and drone pilots, no one really seems to know the answer.

Bruce

 

[Meta4]

Once I get my 107, can I sell the drone images I have shot from before I my 107 was in place. Is the permission to sell retroactive?

Yea but I would like to know if there is any official statement on the sale of images.

No, there's nothing official.
But the FAA isn't concerned at all with selling photos.
That's not their business.
They are concerned about flying for commercial purposes.
They are concerned with the flight - not the photos.

If you were flying for your own enjoyment and taking photos for yourself, that isn't commercial flight.
Selling those photos at a later date doesn't retrospectively make a past legal flight, illegal.

 

[sar104]

No, there's nothing official.
But the FAA isn't concerned at all with selling photos.
That's not their business.
They are concerned about flying for commercial purposes.
They are concerned with the flight - not the photos.

If you were flying for your own enjoyment and taking photos for yourself, that isn't commercial flight.
Selling those photos at a later date doesn't retrospectively make a past legal flight, illegal.

Exactly. That's a nice, concise explanation.

 

[BAGraphics]

Sounds

No, there's nothing official.
But the FAA isn't concerned at all with selling photos.
That's not their business.
They are concerned about flying for commercial purposes.
They are concerned with the flight - not the photos.

If you were flying for your own enjoyment and taking photos for yourself, that isn't commercial flight.
Selling those photos at a later date doesn't retrospectively make a past legal flight, illegal.

Sounds reasonable.

Thanks.

 

[DanMan32]

I was flying today in a park and noticed a pavilion at a pond in the park was missing shingles. I sent a message to the parks dept. about it. Then I got to thinking, if they asked me if I could let them know of any other issues found from an aerial perspective, would that require 107? Assume I'd be doing so at my leisure where seeing issues would be incidental to my flying for fun.

 

[ac0j]

I get the impression that the photos taken already were done so with the intent for possible future sale. I mean, You ARE a professional photo seller, with works in galleries and museums, (not really useful information to include with your generic question other than to impress) why else would A professional photographer buy an expensive flying camera? Dont get me wrong, if you are actually asking about the letter of the law. Technically you already broke it. Will any one care? probably NOT. BUT, In your case you absolutely NEED to get the part 107. As for the existing photos with questionable intentions, do with them what you wish. They will have to PROVE your intent when you took them. (fat chance they could do that)

 

[BAGraphics]

I get the impression that the photos taken already were done so with the intent for possible future sale. I mean, You ARE a professional photo seller, with works in galleries and museums, (not really useful information to include with your generic question other than to impress) why else would A professional photographer buy an expensive flying camera? Dont get me wrong, if you are actually asking about the letter of the law. Technically you already broke it. Will any one care? probably NOT. BUT, In your case you absolutely NEED to get the part 107. As for the existing photos with questionable intentions, do with them what you wish. They will have to PROVE your intent when you took them. (fat chance they could do that)

Nope

I take photos every day with every mode possible and have been doing so for a long time. Cell phones, cameras, now drones. For my own enjoyment. Used to be professionally but now I have a different stable day job. Every once in a while I come across a photo worthy of being on a wall and if I come across some drone shots that I have already taken that someone else may want to purchase, I asked a question that relates to possibly selling images I have already taken. Since I have a professional history with photography, I have outlets to sell my work, Instead of being rude, you could have answered as others have. As I have done nothing against the rules of part 107, I have NOT broken any laws nor do I intend to. This is why I asked my question. Do you know for a fact I can’t sell pre 107 shot photos or are you making an educated guess?

If you are going to join the discussion without being condescending you are most welcome in the thread, if not please refrain from posing moving forward.

With respect

Bruce

 

[ac0j]

I am sorry you do not appreciate my view, but that is my view. Like it or not.
If you ask for peoples thoughts on a subject, be prepared to read something you dont like or dont agree with.
Either way, you have gotten advice that suits any way you want to look at it to comfort yourself. Just use the reply that matches what you want to hear! Sorry for the hurt feelings!

 

[DanMan32]

I don't think ac0j was being rude at all. You did ask our opinion. I thought the same thing ac0j did. You do have a gallery so you are in the photography business, even if it is casual. Granted IRS will probably consider it a hobby and disallow deductions if you can't produce a net taxable profit often enough.

It's a gray area for sure though, particularly since it's based on intent of the flight. I would suggest getting your 107 and fly by those rules just to be safe.

 

[BAGraphics]

I am sorry you do not appreciate my view, but that is my view. Like it or not.
If you ask for peoples thoughts on a subject, be prepared to read something you dont like or dont agree with.
Either way, you have gotten advice that suits any way you want to look at it to comfort yourself. Just use the reply that matches what you want to hear! Sorry for the hurt feelings!

You don’t get it, do you?

It’s the way you replied, not your answers.

If I can’t sell the shots I’ve taken because of the law as it is stated/written, so be it. I’ll just shoot more. If I can, great! Maybe someone else will like to have my work on their wall shot over the past 5 months or so.

I was looking for clarification of a fuzzy area, not affirmation of any pre conceived wishes. My gut thought is no, can’t sell pre 107 shots unless I nix the exif data and hide the images until the same time of year comes around after I pass the exam.

Or.... I just keep having fun with my hobby and keep shooting as I have been doing.

Thanks for your input.

Bruce

 

[ac0j]

Nope, I do not. As with every law there needs to be a first time to enforce. I don’t want to be the first. I am a purely recreational flyer and I am also a photographer and shoot every time I fly. I do not run nor own nor work for a photography company but I have in the past and have numerous images hanging internationally and published. I would prefer to follow the law regardless if it is enforced or not.

Just so I know who asked this of me, do you have your 107 or do you make money without having it just because you don’t know of anyone who has beeen fined?

Bruce

I guess you know who asked this of you now, but you were WRONG about your assumption of me. Condescend much?

 

[BAGraphics]

I don't think ac0j was being rude at all. You did ask our opinion. I thought the same thing ac0j did. You do have a gallery so you are in the photography business, even if it is casual. Granted IRS will probably consider it a hobby and disallow deductions if you can't produce a net taxable profit often enough.

It's a gray area for sure though, particularly since it's based on intent of the flight. I would suggest getting your 107 and fly by those rules just to be safe.

Oh, it’s not my gallery, never said it was. I have a few fine art images I shot years ago hanging for sale here and there from when I was shooting professionally. I had a past client see my not for sale drone images in an on line gallery I post some daily images from my travels in and inquired about purchasing. Hence my question.

The reason I’m studying for my exam is because I think I can produce some images that others may like as well and wanted clarification from those who may know more than I do with my limited drone photography experience.

Studying is happening and soon I hope this will be a moot point.

Thanks

Bruce.

 

[sar104]

You don’t get it, do you?

It’s the way you replied, not your answers.

If I can’t sell the shots I’ve taken because of the law as it is stated/written, so be it. I’ll just shoot more. If I can, great! Maybe someone else will like to have my work on their wall shot over the past 5 months or so.

I was looking for clarification of a fuzzy area, not affirmation of any pre conceived wishes. My gut thought is no, can’t sell pre 107 shots unless I nix the exif data and hide the images until the same time of year comes around after I pass the exam.

Or.... I just keep having fun with my hobby and keep shooting as I have been doing.

Thanks for your input.

Bruce

At the risk of dragging this out you are completely entitled to sell your pre-107 photos provided that your intent, at the time of the flight, was recreational, not to take photos to sell. The only issue is whether you are confident in defending your original intent, should it ever come up as a question. Which is very unlikely of course.

 

[BAGraphics]

At the risk of dragging this out you are completely entitled to sell your pre-107 photos provided that your intent, at the time of the flight, was recreational, not to take photos to sell. The only issue is whether you are confident in defending your original intent, should it ever come up as a question. Which is very unlikely of course.

Well I have a job that takes be across the country most of the year so I get to see a lot of different locals. Each place I end up I enjoy photographing what I see and so have numerous drives worth of images and wayyyyyy to many shots on my iPhone. With the small amount of drone shots compared to the daily shots I take, and I do shoot non drone daily, it would be tough for anyone to say any sale worthy drone shots were part of a for sale thought process. Sad thing is with the type of job I have there is no time to fly a drone recreational while I travel so I only get to shoot those while home between work travel.

I was asking to see if this situation is actually addressed anywhere in the rules.

Thanks
Bruce

 

[Meta4]

I get the impression that the photos taken already were done so with the intent for possible future sale. I mean, You ARE a professional photo seller, with works in galleries and museums, (not really useful information to include with your generic question other than to impress) why else would A professional photographer buy an expensive flying camera?

What you don't seem to be able to understand is that there are people that like creating pictures and do it whether or not they are being paid.
I fly and create memorable images because people pay me to.
And I also fly for myself and create thousands of images that no-one is ever going to buy.
That's called recreation.

Dont get me wrong, if you are actually asking about the letter of the law. Technically you already broke it.

What law would you be talking about?
I haven't seen anything mentioned that suggests any law or regulation has been broken.

 

[ac0j]

What you don't seem to be able to understand is that there are people that like creating pictures and do it whether or not they are being paid.
I fly and create memorable images because people pay me to.
And I also fly for myself and create thousands of images that no-one is ever going to buy.
That's called recreation.

What law would you be talking about?
I haven't seen anything mentioned that suggests any law or regulation has been broken.

What you are ignoring is the direct question from the OP, a professional photographer.
Can he sell photos taken with his Mavic that are on display on a website that his professional clients have access to but are "not for sale" (LOL!). That were taken without a part 107. That is about as grey of an area as you will ever find. But as you have pointed out it is awful hard to prove his intent when he took them. It is pretty easy to form an opinion however. But opinions will never work as evidence. Just as Intent is almost impossible to prove.
The LAW would be commercial INTENT when using a drone for Photography or Video. Without commercial registration. YOU say he didnt have any thoughts of possible salable images, I believe he had to consider that a possibility before he took them. But neither you or I can prove our point, just as HE can not prove his intent. So it is really not worth the discussion at all.

 

[sar104]

Well I have a job that takes be across the country most of the year so I get to see a lot of different locals. Each place I end up I enjoy photographing what I see and so have numerous drives worth of images and wayyyyyy to many shots on my iPhone. With the small amount of drone shots compared to the daily shots I take, and I do shoot non drone daily, it would be tough for anyone to say any sale worthy drone shots were part of a for sale thought process. Sad thing is with the type of job I have there is no time to fly a drone recreational while I travel so I only get to shoot those while home between work travel.

I was asking to see if this situation is actually addressed anywhere in the rules.

Thanks
Bruce

You might be interested to read these documents if you are not familiar with them - they shed some light on the FAA interpretation of these laws:

Media use of UAS

Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft

 

[Meta4]

What you are ignoring is the direct question from the OP, a professional photographer.

What you've ignored was that he was simply asking a question.
But you've managed to form an opinion with very few facts or details and jumped from that to deciding that he's guilty of something that isn't a crime anyway.
Good work.

 

[ac0j]

Here is an enlightening point to this conversation from SARS links;

"The statute requires model aircraft to be flown strictly for hobby or recreational purposes. Because the statute and its legislative history do not elaborate on the intended meaning of “hobby or recreational purposes,” we look to their ordinary meaning and also the FAA’s previous interpretations to understand the direction provided by Congress.3 A definition of “hobby” is a “pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation.” These uses are consistent with the FAA’s 2007 policy on model aircraft in which the Agency stated model aircraft a simulation of what a pilot would see from the flight deck of a manned aircraft, the goggles may obstruct an operator’s vision, thereby preventing the operator from keeping the model aircraft within his or her visual line of sight at all times. 3 In construing statutory language, agencies should assume that the ordinary meaning of the language accurately expresses the legislative purpose of Congress. Agencies are also permitted to presume that Congress was aware of the agencies’ administrative or adjudicative interpretations of certain terms and intended to adopt those meanings. See BedRoc Ltd. v. U.S., 541 U.S. 176, 183 (2004); see also Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 300 (1981); Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580-81 (1978). 10 operating guidelines did not apply to “persons or companies for business purposes.” See 72 FR at 6690.4 Any operation not conducted strictly for hobby or recreation purposes could not be operated under the special rule for model aircraft. Clearly, commercial operations would not be hobby or recreation flights.5 Likewise, flights that are in furtherance of a business, or incidental to a person’s business, would not be a hobby or recreation flight.

 

[ac0j]

What you've ignored was that he was simply asking a question.
But you've managed to form an opinion with very few facts or details and jumped from that to deciding that he's guilty of something that isn't a crime anyway.
Good work.

And YOU have decided the opposite of me based on the same very few facts or details. You are to be commended as well!