Sharing pictures with subject owners?

mjbok · Jul 30, 2018

I usually use my drones to take pictures and/or video of subjects that I find visually interesting. That might be a building, a location, etc.

Do any of you share the photos/videos you take of the owners of said buildings. For example we just got a new library where I live. It is always super busy so I went there off hours to take some pictures (didn't take any video). I got some cool pics and I am thinking of giving them to the Library itself. I figure they can use it on their website if they like, but I just feel weird about it because even though I am a patron they don't know me.

Does anybody else ever share their pictures?

Huge Bama Fan · Jul 30, 2018

I have a park back home that I was going to fly and the Ranger had said she wanted a copy for the website when I got finished. But weather wasn't on my side. Everything else I do goes to YouTube

seowashdc · Jul 30, 2018

What a nice gesture to share your pictures with the library! I'm sure they'll appreciate the spirit in which you created the photos and can use them somewhere, both on and off line.

TrayBoz · Jul 30, 2018

I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but I have read stories (on this forum) over the past 2 years of some crabby individuals getting angry when they found out they were filmed without their knowledge, sadly. So just beware. Not everyone is so delightfully pleasant about photos or videos being taken of them or their property, unfortunately.

I guess they don't know about Google Maps' Street view.

308Shooter · Jul 30, 2018

TrayBoz said:
I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but I have read stories (on this forum) over the past 2 years of some crabby individuals getting angry when they found out they were filmed without their knowledge, sadly. So just beware. Not everyone is so delightfully pleasant about photos or videos being taken of them or their property, unfortunately.

That is true... you have to be careful about that. However, I believe the pictures were taken after hours so he should be okay.... SHOULD. With that said, I would definitely contact the library and make the offer. Good deeds are too few and far between these days.

Chip · Jul 30, 2018

"I figure they can use it on their website..."

I am curious whether drone footage given to and posted on a government or commercial website may be considered "commercial" requiring a 107 License? Does "donating" the footage for free make a difference? What about if the source of the video (and name of the pilot) is left off the website?

mjbok · Jul 30, 2018

Chip said:
"I figure they can use it on their website..."

I am curious whether drone footage given to and posted on a government or commercial website may be considered "commercial" requiring a 107 License? Does "donating" the footage for free make a difference? What about if the source of the video (and name of the pilot) is left off the website?

Since there would be no payment I would assume I would be in the clear.

mad monkey · Jul 30, 2018

One good thought could be to ask them, hey, mind if intake a photo or two? I'm happy to share with you... See the reaction first... Retroactive permission lol

wytnyt · Jul 30, 2018

i too like sharing my pics especially since their aerial pics and lots of people have never had an aerial pic of themselves
since i give high color photos i found i needed a good printer so i got one that will print 6500+ 10x12 photos on one ink filling
this beast just wont run out of ink.

Sprocket · Jul 30, 2018

FYI The following is part of an email that I sent to the FAA regarding something like this thread. I think because the church sell burial plots on their website caused my question to fall into 107 territory. Seems like a pretty lame excuse to me, but oh well.

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:42:23 PM
To: 9-NATL-UAS-Help (FAA)
Subject: Message from www.faa.gov: [email protected]

This email was sent through the Federal Aviation Administration's public website. You have been contacted via an email link on the following page: www.faa.gov/uas/contact/

Message:
----------------------
I own and fly a small drone. I am not licensed under part 107. I was asked to fly over and film a local church owned cemetery by a member of their cemetery association for display on their church website. I will not receive monetary compensation. I will simply be doing a favor for the church. My question is: Can I legally conduct this flight under the hobbyist/recreationalist flight rules or will I need the 107 certificate. I will not conduct this flight if I am not legally qualified to do so. Thank you for your time.

Their reply:
Sir,

Hi. Legally, you need a Part 107 Remote pilots license. Section 336 says "for fun or recreation." Taking a picture of a cemetery for a church website is not fur or recreational.

Thank you for contacting the FAA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Support Center.

GH

Please follow up with any further inquiries at [email protected]. Additional information is also available at Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

We appreciate your feedback. Please select: UAS Safety and Integration Division AUS-400.

beachcombing · Jul 30, 2018

mjbok said:
Since there would be no payment I would assume I would be in the clear.

Payment or no payment is not part of the equation for determining if a flight is a Part 107 flight.

If the flight was done for the pilot's own personal enjoyment, then it is considered "hobby/recreation".

If the flight was done for purposes beyond one's own personal enjoyment, then it would be considered to not fall under the "hobby/recreation" protections. And the pilot would need a Part 107 certification (if in the US).

If you flew for your own personal enjoyment and then subsequently someone else might be interested in the pictures or videos you might have taken, then this can be considered still covered under "hobby/recreation". The determining factor is your intent when you made the flight.

If you make the flight with the intent to give them to the library (or anyone else), then it probably would not be covered under the protections of "hobby/recreation". Proceed with caution.

mad monkey · Jul 30, 2018

So in the US.. If I have fun flying and taking photos and people just happen to like them and pay me I'm good so long as I had fun lol....

America never fails to entertain lol

Chip · Jul 31, 2018

mad monkey said:
So in the US.. If I have fun flying and taking photos and people just happen to like them and pay me I'm good so long as I had fun lol....

Yes, so long as having the fun was pre-meditated or planned in advance as opposed to you having fun unexpectedly and by accident!

tcope · Jul 31, 2018

I stopped offering photos/video unless the person asks. Many years ago I took some photos of a local soccer stadium. I also did a 3D model. I emailed it to them as I thought that they would find it interesting. Their reply was to _demand_ that I take down all photos and delete them. I explained I was on public property when I took them and that it was all legal. They wrote back and explain that their email was wording a little strong but they were worried if people saw them that they would think it was okay to fly over the stadium when it was being used. So now I don't go out of my way as it is just not worth it.

mikemoose55 · Jul 31, 2018

this whole thing about legality is so darn stupid. I am a hobbist if I am having fun and I am experiencing personel enjoyment flying my drome.

So if if Go4 is not working, my tablet is locking up and pixelated all to heck , if I keep losing my connection and i have to return to home because I have operational issues I can't be in a state of euphoria , not enjoying myself therefore I am in violation of 107 as i have lost my hobbist status.

what about when I have to land because my flight battery is at 20% or less I am never happy when this happens the enjoyment stops so for the landing portion of my otherwise enjoyable flight I am in need of a 107 certificate.

Last but not least...I am having a good time got a smile on my face all is well drone and tablet are working fine ( I must be using Litchi) and someone starts screaming at me because they think I am spying on their privacy etc. OOPS thanks to that butt crack I am now
unhappy, not enjoying my flight and now BREAKING THE LAW.

This kind of thing happens when the people in charge have absolutely no clue what they are doing and broad blanket rules and regulations to bolster any position they choose to take while making crap up as they go. i may be a crotchety old bastard and I refuse to buckle to the thought police who think they can evaluate my level of pleasure and joy.
JUST GO FLY SOMETHING

Mymgb · Jul 31, 2018

I too,like to take pics and video's of our local marina and golf course,etc. I do not have a 107 but in asking permission, I offer photos for their use. The marina is a private club and asked me if they included a clip from my video as the club house had recently been painted. I accepted no payment or anything for the video's but as a result I have been allowed to use the facility parking lot to make camera adjustments,RTH adjustments,etc before going out flying. Golf courses permitted on days they were closed but had no interest in my pics

mjbok · Jul 31, 2018

Mymgb said:
I too,like to take pics and video's of our local marina and golf course,etc. I do not have a 107 but in asking permission, I offer photos for their use. The marina is a private club and asked me if they included a clip from my video as the club house had recently been painted. I accepted no payment or anything for the video's but as a result I have been allowed to use the facility parking lot to make camera adjustments,RTH adjustments,etc before going out flying. Golf courses permitted on days they were closed but had no interest in my pics

I'm surprised the golf courses had no interest. That is actually something I'd love to do. If I offended anyone with this thread I apologize, I was looking for experiences other have had, but many have brought up the potential down-side. No good deed I guess.

Sprocket · Jul 31, 2018

Years ago there was a company that would fly over farm homes and take pictures. A couple months later some salesman would stop by and try and sell the photos to the farmer or his wife. The pics were really expensive to purchase. They were taken without the landowners knowledge. Everyone knew what was going on when they saw the plane, but no body complained.

sar104 · Jul 31, 2018

mikemoose55 said:
this whole thing about legality is so darn stupid. I am a hobbist if I am having fun and I am experiencing personel enjoyment flying my drome.

So if if Go4 is not working, my tablet is locking up and pixelated all to heck , if I keep losing my connection and i have to return to home because I have operational issues I can't be in a state of euphoria , not enjoying myself therefore I am in violation of 107 as i have lost my hobbist status.

what about when I have to land because my flight battery is at 20% or less I am never happy when this happens the enjoyment stops so for the landing portion of my otherwise enjoyable flight I am in need of a 107 certificate.

Last but not least...I am having a good time got a smile on my face all is well drone and tablet are working fine ( I must be using Litchi) and someone starts screaming at me because they think I am spying on their privacy etc. OOPS thanks to that butt crack I am now
unhappy, not enjoying my flight and now BREAKING THE LAW.

This kind of thing happens when the people in charge have absolutely no clue what they are doing and broad blanket rules and regulations to bolster any position they choose to take while making crap up as they go. i may be a crotchety old bastard and I refuse to buckle to the thought police who think they can evaluate my level of pleasure and joy.
JUST GO FLY SOMETHING

The situation is more complicated than that. Hobby flight (flying model aircraft for recreation) is protected under federal law (Public Law 112-95, Section 336). All other kinds of flight are not. So the distinction between protected hobby flights (no license required) and all other flights (license required) made in 14 CFR Part 107 was not the choice of the FAA - it was imposed on them by a previous law passed by Congress. I think there is little doubt that in the absence of 336, the FAA would have imposed some level of regulation on all sUAS operations. And at some point, probably in the not-too-distant future, 336 will be revoked by Congress, and then there will be more consistent and overarching regulation of all flights.