Selling photos taken before I passed my 107 exam

[sar104]

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.

Yes - but you should read the other document for additional context if this is not clear enough. It is the intent at the time of the flight that matters. If a flight was recreational, then subsequent, unplanned use of photos or video either for profit or in furtherance of a business does not change the intent of the flight, and is not prohibited.

 

[sar104]

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

I'd have to disagree. @Meta4 appears to have understood the laws and interpretations as written, whereas you have not.

 

[Meta4]

A definition of “hobby” is a “pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation.”
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.

Try this scenario on and see how it fits.
I have a friend who is a 747 pilot.
He flies the jet for a living.
He also has a Tiger Moth biplane and flies that for fun.
Although he flies airplanes professionally he also flies airplanes recreationally.

Just because someone is a professional photographer doesn't mean that every photo they shoot is with the intention of a future sale.
Like I said above, I fly and photograph for my own enjoyment as well as for clients.

 

[ac0j]

I'd have to disagree. @Meta4 appears to have understood the laws and interpretations as written, whereas you have not.

The regulations are unenforceable as written. You do not even need an attorney to claim "I had no intention" and have it stand. That is probably why there hasn't been any attempts to prosecute anyone for it.
Not that I have any reason to worry about commercial intentions that I have NONE of. EVER.

I read between the lines in the OP's post and formed my opinion of what is going on. I fully expect for people to have formed different opinions than mine. I even expected people to try and force their opinions on me, and even take shots at my intelligence while defending the ridiculous rules laid down by the FAA when defining "commercial"
I wonder what if the IRS deems your income from this commercial activity as a nontaxable HOBBY income, does that excuse you from the commercial requirements of the FAA since the IRS had declared it an hobby? I am sure it would NOT.
A professional photographer with a website, and a history of "for sale" photos in several locations, and work on display in important places, and coincidentally keeps a website of his work available to former clients to browse, and he HAS posted his drone photos on that site though "not for sale" LOL!
It would seem obvious to me for him to go buy a quality flying camera primarily to supplement that pursuit. Or at least have that possibility in mind at the time of purchase. Therefore has the INTENTION. which is all that is required for part 107. That is how I see it. because it makes the most sense in this case. If he wants to claim that wasnt even remotely in his line of thought when the purchase was made, that would NOT make sense, and is more likely to be untrue.
Again, no matter what the rules, or our interpretation and opinion of them. He is free to do whatever he wants, and to do so with out much concern about being contacted by authorities about it.
Every photographer has a stash of not good enough to sell photos. Because NO photographer is THAT good.
It is real easy to throw those in the "hobby flight" box, and trade out for some "commercial grade" shots from those relaxing hobby flights to put in the "for sale" pile.

 

[ac0j]

Try this scenario on and see how it fits.
I have a friend who is a 747 pilot.
He flies the jet for a living.
He also has a Tiger Moth biplane and flies that for fun.
Although he flies airplanes professionally he also flies airplanes recreationally.

Just because someone is a professional photographer doesn't mean that every photo they shoot is with the intention of a future sale.
Like I said above, I fly and photograph for my own enjoyment as well as for clients.

Its about Photos taken from the aircraft. Not about who is flying it. Your example is not completely relevant. He has and NEEDS a commercial license for work. He also has to have a license to fly the Biplane recreationally. BUT, I wonder if HE can take photos from his Biplane and sell them with either of his tickets? this discussion is about a photographer and an aircraft, NOT an aircraft and another aircraft.

 

[Meta4]

Its about Photos taken from the aircraft. Not about who is flying it. Your example is not completely relevant. He has and NEEDS a commercial license for work. He also has to have a license to fly the Biplane recreationally. BUT, I wonder if HE can take photos from his Biplane and sell them with either of his tickets? this discussion is about a photographer and an aircraft, NOT an aircraft and another aircraft.

Sorry ... you didn't get it at all.
It was about the distinction between recreational and commercial activities and how they might appear similar to you but are quite different.

Every photographer has a stash of not good enough to sell photos. Because NO photographer is THAT good.
It is real easy to throw those in the "hobby flight" box, and trade out for some "commercial grade" shots from those relaxing hobby flights to put in the "for sale" pile.

You continue to focus on the photos, but the FAA don't.
They don't have any rules or regulations about selling photos.
Their rules are about flying.
If they had any care about this topic (they don't) it would be about whether there was an unlicensed commercial flight, not whether photos might be sold at some time in the future.
And the flights in question were taken for recreation, they were legal at the time and that doesn't change if the photographer is lucky enough to have someone want to part with cash for them at a later date.

 

[ac0j]

Sorry ... you didn't get it at all.
It was about the distinction between recreational and commercial activities and how they might appear similar to you but are quite different.

You continue to focus on the photos, but the FAA don't.
They don't have any rules or regulations about selling photos.
Their rules are about flying.
If they had any care about this topic (they don't) it would be about whether there was an unlicensed commercial flight, not whether photos might be sold at some time in the future.
And the flights in question were taken for recreation, they were legal at the time and that doesn't change if the photographer is lucky enough to have someone want to part with cash for them at a later date.

The PHOTOS are the subjects of the "INTENT" without the photo's , there could be NO commercial anything about a Mavic flight because there would be no commercial activity to do without the CAMERA. Feel free to think "Profit from the flight" every time you see "sell photos " if that makes things easier for you to follow.
I was not aware you were present when the flights occurred and can confirm with certainty that there was no intention to possibly profit from those flights. so pardon me for not asking you for that valuable information.
I have NEVER met a photographer that wouldn't sell a copy of a good photo. Dont even think that anyone would believe that you or anyone else in your position would declare your "recreational" aerial photos as not for sale. You KNOW that, (you dont have to admit it) and by knowing that, then you ALWAYS HAVE THE INTENT. PERIOD!
Play all the word games you want. But since I cant PROVE anyones intent, and YOU cannot prove anyones intent, the FAA cannot prove anyones intent. It is a non issue as far as I am concerned.

 

[Meta4]

I have NEVER met a photographer that wouldn't sell a copy of a good photo. Dont even think that anyone would believe that you or anyone else in your position would declare your "recreational" aerial photos as not for sale. You KNOW that, (you dont have to admit it) and by knowing that, then you ALWAYS HAVE THE INTENT. PERIOD!.

It's not about the photos.
There aren't recreational photos and commercial photos.
There's commercial flight and recreational flight.
If the FAA thought like you, no-one would be allowed to take photos from a drone without a commercial licence.
But strange as it may seem, the FAA don't see things as you do.

 

[BAGraphics]

It's not about the photos.
There aren't recreational photos and commercial photos.
There's commercial flight and recreational flight.
If the FAA thought like you, no-one would be allowed to take photos from a drone without a commercial licence.
But strange as it may seem, the FAA don't see things as you do.

Meta4,

Don’t waste your time responding to this guy. He will never understood and has some chip on his shoulder to deal with.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to answer my question without attacking my integrity.

ac0j, I am not a working professional photographer, I used to be one but now a days I am a catastrophic claims adjuster for a major American insurance company and when I do fly, it is strictly for decompression and enjoyment when I get a chance to be home. We’ve been busy these past few years.

You may also want to educate yourself with portfolio sites like EyeEm which allows you to post images and to choose to put some of them up for sale with proper releases if needed. The drone shots I post are for viewing only and not for sale. Yes, I do also have Sites that are only sale sites, no drone images there FOR THE VERY REASON OF MY ORIGINAL QUESTION.

Now please move on to another thread, you posted some good information here but it seems will never get what this thread is about, clarification of a law that is fuzzy. Accuse me of nefarious intent all you want, you are the one saying that it doesn’t matter what the law is as long as you lie about your intent.

Bruce

 

[ac0j]

Meta4,

Don’t waste your time responding to this guy. He will never understood and has some chip on his shoulder to deal with.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to answer my question without attacking my integrity.

ac0j, I am not a working professional photographer, I used to be one but now a days I am a catastrophic claims adjuster for a major American insurance company and when I do fly, it is strictly for decompression and enjoyment when I get a chance to be home. We’ve been busy these past few years.

You may also want to educate yourself with portfolio sites like EyeEm which allows you to post images and to choose to put some of them up for sale with proper releases if needed. The drone shots I post are for viewing only and not for sale. Yes, I do also have Sites that are only sale sites, no drone images there FOR THE VERY REASON OF MY ORIGINAL QUESTION.

Now please move on to another thread, you posted some good information here but it seems will never get what this thread is about, clarification of a law that is fuzzy. Accuse me of nefarious intent all you want, you are the one saying that it doesn’t matter what the law is as long as you lie about your intent.

Bruce

I am sorry that I have appearantly insulted you.
I do have a chip on my shoulder, but it is with the FAA and their policies. Let me expand so you can see where I am coming from.
The FAA says there are either recreational flights or commercial flights. That has to be determined before the AC leaves the ground, and cannot be changed in flight. BUT it has been explained to me by the literal types that there are NO logs required for either type of flight, there is no requirement on how to declare the flight either verbally or visually. So one must simply think to themselves before takeoff what they intend to do during the flight.
Now maybe someone who has read that thoroughly can explain how, say 1 year down the road can the FAA expect the pilot to prove what type of flight the product in question came from? When it is all about what went on in the head of the pilot and is not required to be logged. The 107 pilot can just simply say EVERY time “ oh I didn’t intend to sell anything when I did that flight” and there is no way to disprove that.
I don’t like the idea that they make a person go through the part 107 hoops to do something a hobby pilot can do without the BS. And in some cases the part 107 puts more restrictions on the 107 pilots than the hobby pilots.
So my comments although possibly sarcastic and offenseive are directed more at the FAA and their dimwit approach to flying shoe sized objects with a camera and treating them as manned commercial aircraft in a sense.
I was attempting to point out that there is no letter of the law in your case. I have said you can sell these photos without much worry of conflict. And that is the truth. I have also pointed out the idiotic angle that the FAA could Pursue to the contrary. Even thought that will never happen.
Imagine the hobby registration as a fine line on the right. And the 107 as a fine line on the left. Then place one mile of grey area between them. That is what is stupid.
I have no intention of ever posting or selling anything I do or have done with my drone. So I have no need for the 107 that would restrict me more for the types of flying I might do. And by my no intention statement above. That alone by definition makes it possible for me to sell a photo or video with no recourse.
You would have to agree that that is about as dumb as it gets as far as the FAA regulations are concerned wouldn’t you?

 

[FLPilotshark]

@BAGraphics - Absolutely not, you can't make a penny off that aircraft until you're fully Airmen Certified! Let me tell you a quick story, my buddy who took the exam a few weeks ago and passed after going to drone school. Anyways, my buddy said that their instructor told them that the FAA just nailed someone for flying in the city at 800 ft altitude and flying and posting it on Youtube which is a big no-no. The guy got traced back off his Youtube account and the FAA Fined him for $20,000 thousand dollars. It's not worth it!! Study Study Study! In my opinion, you should probably only be flying your drone on basic modes until you get fully certified. There are so many people out there flying at night & disobeying the FAA rules its not even funny, its sad!. I live on the beach, and we have Helicopters that fly within the 500ft rage altitude when flying over the Gulf Of Mexico so my bird never goes above the 300ft range to 400ft range and I always fly with a spotter, no matter what!!


One last thing people, whoever lives in CA, I wish you and your families nothing but the best but ya better watch where you fly your drones in CA..

Drones interfering with emergency wildfire responders
Drones interfering with emergency wildfire responders


Another article is where the drone pilot inferred with a police investigation is got busted and the pilot got a massive fine.mate!

The Federal Aviation Administration is asking operators of unmanned aircraft or drones to consider the consequences when flying could interfere with firefighter, law enforcement or medical flight operations. Drone operators are now more likely than ever to face serious civil penalties for interfering with first responders, even for first-time offenses, according to a press release from the FAA. Those who might encounter possible drone violations have been instructed to forward all cases involving interference with first responders to the FAA Chief Counsel’s office. So far, there’s only been one local violation of note involving a drone that Dave Mann, executive director of Batten International Airport is aware of. It did not involve first responder operations. In 2015, a small drone crashed on a Batten airport taxiway after its “home” button was improperly programmed. The FAA prohibits the flying of drones within five miles of an airport. The drone’s operator was not cited for the incident. According to Racine Fire Chief Steve Hansen and Sgt. Adam Malacara, public information officer for the Racine Police Department, neither local police or fire have encountered drone interference with the work. “We’ve got some pretty responsible drone operators around here,” Mann said.
But now that the FAA is moving from education to enforcement, at least in some cases, Mann wants to ensure that local drone operators follow the rules.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I don’t want to see anybody get fined,” Mann said.

Two years ago, Congress authorized the FAA to impose a civil fine of up to $20,000 for anyone who, while flying a drone, deliberately or recklessly interferes with wildfire suppression, law enforcement or emergency response efforts.
“Under FAA guidance, inspectors generally use non-enforcement methods, including education, for correcting unintentional violations that arise from factors such as flawed systems, simple mistakes, or lack of understanding,” according to the FAA release. “However, given the potential for direct and immediate interference with potentially life-saving operations where minutes matter, offenders will immediately be considered for enforcement actions. Enforcement actions can include revocation or suspension of a pilot certificate, and up to a $20,000 civil penalty per violation.”
The FAA emphasized the importance of deterring drone interference with the work of first responders.
“Firefighting aircraft trying to contain a wildfire have to suspend flights when a drone enters the area to avoid a possible mid-air collision,” according to the FAA release. “A drone flying over a crime scene or accident site can hamper police or medical aircraft operations. Ultimately, interference by a drone can cost lives.”
Drone operators can find all the rules and regulations for flying their unmanned aircraft at FAA.gov.

 

[2nckayakers]

@BAGraphics - Absolutely not, you can't make a penny off that aircraft until you're fully Airmen Certified! Let me tell you a quick story, my buddy who took the exam a few weeks ago and passed after going to drone school. Anyways, my buddy said that their instructor told them that the FAA just nailed someone for flying in the city at 800 ft altitude and flying and posting it on Youtube which is a big no-no. The guy got traced back off his Youtube account and the FAA Fined him for $20,000 thousand dollars. It's not worth it!! Study Study Study! In my opinion, you should probably only be flying your drone on basic modes until you get fully certified. There are so many people out there flying at night & disobeying the FAA rules its not even funny, its sad!.

Although I don't agree with all of ac0J's thoughts, I do agree with him on the fact that the rules on 107 pilots are way more strict than recreational pilots. Although in these discussions we are talking about the old FAA authorization act, and with the new Reauthorization act those rules will change.

However, FLP, under the old rules recreational pilots can fly at night as long as they have anti collision lights on their bird. I see so many times in here people saying that flying at night is against the rules and it is not. (at least under the 2012 authorization act and 336) Back to ac0J's comments this is one of those areas where the FAA seemed backwards. However to defend the FAA (as bad as I hate to do it) their hands were tied under the 2012 act because they had to go by 336 which allowed recreational pilots to fly in a whole lot of situations that they didn't want commercial pilots to fly in without approval.

All of this mess however is going to be a little clearer in the 2018 reauthorization act because once everything in there is implemented then the grey areas between recreational and commercial will be a lot smaller than they are now. I don't say that meaning it is going to be clear as day and there won't be any problems, but it won't be like reading through mud.[/QUOTE]

 

[Meta4]

@BAGraphics - Absolutely not, you can't make a penny off that aircraft until you're fully Airmen Certified!

Umm ... how was any of that at all related to anything in this thread?

 

[FLPilotshark]

Umm ... how was any of that at all related to anything in this thread?

@Meta4 - Umm - Easy the topic was Selling photos taken before I passed my 107 exam!!
I posted that you Absolutely cant until you pass your PART 107 EXAM AND GAVE EVERYONE EXAMPLE OF A situation if you do sell your photos OR you get caught flying at higher altitudes etc. Just trying to lay the law out there so none of us get in trouble mate/.

 

[Meta4]

@Meta4 - Umm - Easy the topic was Selling photos taken before I passed my 107 exam!!
I posted that you Absolutely cant until you pass your PART 107 EXAM AND GAVE EVERYONE EXAMPLE OF A situation if you do sell your photos OR you get caught flying at higher altitudes etc. Just trying to lay the law out there so none of us get in trouble mate/.

I'm glad you can see something relevant in what you posted.
But it's just saying don't fly dangerously or you may be fined, which has nothing to do with anything that's been discussed in the thread..

 

[2nckayakers]

@Meta4 - Umm - Easy the topic was Selling photos taken before I passed my 107 exam!!
I posted that you Absolutely cant until you pass your PART 107 EXAM AND GAVE EVERYONE EXAMPLE OF A situation if you do sell your photos OR you get caught flying at higher altitudes etc. Just trying to lay the law out there so none of us get in trouble mate/.

But you can fly at 800 feet in the city, and you can post videos on YouTube, both without a 107. Example, if they are flying near a building that is 400' agl then your maximum ceiling would be 800' agl. The FAA says you can be no more than 400' agl above the highest point. If the highest point is a 2000' tower, I can fly at 2400' agl as long as I am within 400' of that tower. That applies to both recreational and commercial pilots. Also you don't need a license to post on YouTube unless you monetize your channel or you are using the YouTube channel to further your commercial business. So you needed to be a little clearer in your example.

 

[FLPilotshark]

I think you miss understood me.. I know all about the highest points but in this case, the guy was nowhere near any sort of building type structures and flying at night without any sort of lights what so ever. Does that make more sense?

 

[BAGraphics]

I am sorry that I have appearantly insulted you.
I do have a chip on my shoulder, but it is with the FAA and their policies. Let me expand so you can see where I am coming from.
The FAA says there are either recreational flights or commercial flights. That has to be determined before the AC leaves the ground, and cannot be changed in flight. BUT it has been explained to me by the literal types that there are NO logs required for either type of flight, there is no requirement on how to declare the flight either verbally or visually. So one must simply think to themselves before takeoff what they intend to do during the flight.
Now maybe someone who has read that thoroughly can explain how, say 1 year down the road can the FAA expect the pilot to prove what type of flight the product in question came from? When it is all about what went on in the head of the pilot and is not required to be logged. The 107 pilot can just simply say EVERY time “ oh I didn’t intend to sell anything when I did that flight” and there is no way to disprove that.
I don’t like the idea that they make a person go through the part 107 hoops to do something a hobby pilot can do without the BS. And in some cases the part 107 puts more restrictions on the 107 pilots than the hobby pilots.
So my comments although possibly sarcastic and offenseive are directed more at the FAA and their dimwit approach to flying shoe sized objects with a camera and treating them as manned commercial aircraft in a sense.
I was attempting to point out that there is no letter of the law in your case. I have said you can sell these photos without much worry of conflict. And that is the truth. I have also pointed out the idiotic angle that the FAA could Pursue to the contrary. Even thought that will never happen.
Imagine the hobby registration as a fine line on the right. And the 107 as a fine line on the left. Then place one mile of grey area between them. That is what is stupid.
I have no intention of ever posting or selling anything I do or have done with my drone. So I have no need for the 107 that would restrict me more for the types of flying I might do. And by my no intention statement above. That alone by definition makes it possible for me to sell a photo or video with no recourse.
You would have to agree that that is about as dumb as it gets as far as the FAA regulations are concerned wouldn’t you?

Thank you for your well thought out response. Yes, the FAA is dealing with a very gray area here with intent. They are mainly thinking, so it seems, that it will be clear cut as to intent when sending a drone into the air.

Bruce

 

[sar104]

@Meta4 - Umm - Easy the topic was Selling photos taken before I passed my 107 exam!!
I posted that you Absolutely cant until you pass your PART 107 EXAM AND GAVE EVERYONE EXAMPLE OF A situation if you do sell your photos OR you get caught flying at higher altitudes etc. Just trying to lay the law out there so none of us get in trouble mate/.

The basic advice - you can't fly with any intent other than recreational without a Part 107 - is fine. However, in this case you have either misunderstood the OP's situation or the law, or both. He states that his flights were, at the time, recreational. If that is the case then he can subsequently legally sell those images, with or without a Part 107. The FAA documents linked to in the discussion above are perfectly clear on that issue.

And yes - everyone is aware that it looks like a loophole - claim to fly for fun and then sell images or video later. In a way it is, but not really an exploitable one; you couldn't build a business with that approach because you could not advertise your services in any way.

 

[julius13]

Hello all.I have been a ground based photographer for many years and just took up drone photography. I have many drone shots that I think are worthy of being sold. I know I can’t sell them without my 107 lic so I am studying f the test now and was wondering if, when I pass the dam, I can sell the photos taken before I got certified? I would hate to have beautiful shots that are in limbo and t “stop shooting” until passing as absurd.

I know I can delete my metadata to change the taken date but would not like to do that.

Anyone have some insight?

Thanks

I would personally not sell them. One person suggested you alter the metadata...then who’d know. Well, you would know. As a photographer you will agree there is always another, a better shot around the corner. Get your 107 and then go shoot those great photos.