Take pictures and footage, Commercial Permission required?

[KobeFlight1981]

Just wondering, if anyone can lead me in the right direction. With the footage from my drone, if I wanted to put them onto a site like shutterstock to sell? How much would I have to make for it to be classed as commercial? Even if it's a once off or every year I put something up? I recently heard this from a youtuber who works with drones, that it doesn't get classed as commercial or require permission from the CAA or have a NQE unless I make a substantial amount of money from it..and I don't really know if it's still true or not?
I've been on the CAA website relating to drones, but there is no information on this... well no clear information on this...
I'm just a hobbyist, very new to flying, long background in the aviation industry until I got fed up with the **** politics.
I can't be *** to make a business out of it as I have several companies I already own.
So what I'm saying is, I'm not looking to flood sites like shutterstock with pictures every other day to see if I can make money, but if one of my pictures did start making some money, how much would I have to make before I hit the threshold? It would be pointless of me to do my NQE and pay for permission if I'm not going to use my drone for commercial business use. My line of work doesn't require me to use my drone, in fact, it would most likely be shot down if I did use it.. lol

 

[dirkclod]

If you were on our side of the pond you would not be a hobbyist if you were to sell and would have to have your 107.
Would think the same apples there but will let someone from there tell you .

 

[zocalo]

Disclaimer: IANAL - this is my own take on the current UK situation based on my own research into your question with slightly more commercial aims as I sell a fair number of DSLR images.

Officially you need to have a PfCO if you make *any* commercial use of an aircraft - including drones - in the UK. That includes both payment for money, or "in kind"; e.g. a pilot cannot offer the flight in return for a passenger paying for the fuel or lunch, even if they don't actually make any profit. In practice, lots of drone UK pilots either appear to be ignorant of this - or deliberately ignore it - and freely post images on various monetized social media and stock image sites, so YMMV if you decide to roll the dice with it. Just keep in mind that is it might take is one slighted PfCO-holding drone operator to land you in court.

Further muddying the legal waters seems to be the concept of intent; e.g. if you take a nice shot using your drone, while flying purely for personal enjoyment, then someone offers you money for a print at a later date, this would supposedly be fine. Note that this is quite different from deliberately taking photos to publish on stock libraries on the off-chance that they might sell as that would obviously have some commercial intent. Again, quite a few UK pilots take and post a *lot* of images using this - essentially legally untested - loophole to do so. Once again, YMMV on the risk vs. potential reward.

On the plus side, the new EU drone legislation that is supposedly coming to the UK next year seems to remove the concept of a "commercial pilot" altogether, although it's not yet clear how this will translate in to actual UK law.
Several people and organizations see one possible interpretation being that casual monetisation will be fine, but if you want to do fly near buildings, over crowds, BVLOS, at night, etc. then you will need additional certifications. (It's not done yet though, and the combination of Brexit and a potential change of government could yet see it scrapped, although that does seem unlikely as it's both needed and seems fairly well supported).

If you can wait a little longer, then I'd maybe be more inclined to do that rather than spend the time and money on getting a PfCO that you might not require for long, or (worse) risk some legal issues. If not, then the CAA is generally quite responsive for enquiries of this nature and may be better define the rules for you. That might not be the answer you are hoping for though, and once you've asked the question of the CAA, then pleading ignorance of their requirements would clearly not be possible.

 

[4wd]

The upcoming rule changes more or less do away with the commercial pilot concept.
Most of your uploads would need to be editorial I expect.
Aerial video with a strong subject still sells quite well.
They won't accept e.g. National trust properties.

 

[Meta4]

So what I'm saying is, I'm not looking to flood sites like shutterstock with pictures every other day to see if I can make money, but if one of my pictures did start making some money, how much would I have to make before I hit the threshold

There are a couple of issues here.
Any time you ask here about selling aerial imagery, you'll find some fundamentalists who will suggest you need full commercial licensing even to give away a drone photo.
The CAA, FAA etc have rules about aviation and flying.
The only concerns they have relevant to your questions are about flying commercially.
They have no rules about photos or what you do with them and there is no threshold.

The other issue is whether you would even sell anything or make any money from a stock agency.
You might have amazing images of something that is very saleable (if you are very lucky).
Or like most people that submit to stock agencies, you make nothing at all or perhaps just peanuts.
I wouldn't recommend counting any stock agency sales chickens before they hatch.

 

[tck444]

My experience starting out was to sell just 3 video out of perhaps 100 submissions ? I am usingsing Shutterstock, Pond5, and Black Box. Average commission was about $35.00.

So mostly some minor return for my hobby.

Sample attached;

 

[GadgetGuy]

If you were on our side of the pond you would not be a hobbyist if you were to sell and would have to have your 107.

Not if the intent at the time of the original flights was purely recreational, as he has stated. You can sell anything you want later, as long as that was not your original intent when the photos were taken in the United States. Often misunderstood.

 

[dirkclod]

Not if the intent at the time of the original flights was purely recreational, as he has stated. You can sell anything you want later, as long as that was not your original intent when the photos were taken in the United States. Often misunderstood.

Yeah is kinda a grey area huh. In that thought I could take
the thousand of pictures I have took over the years and display them in a website and sell them then ?

 

[GadgetGuy]

Yeah is kinda a grey area huh. In that thought I could take
the thousand of pictures I have took over the years and display them in a website and sell them then ?

It really isn't grey at all. It's black and white. In the U.S., anything shot while flying recreationally can later be sold without limitation for any amount of money. As long as the intent of the flight at launch was recreational, whatever video and photos that came from the flight can freely be sold later. Create your website and sell away, without a second thought. Even @BigAl07 fully agrees with me on this one, from his prior posts on this very subject.

 

[dirkclod]

It really isn't grey at all. It's black and white. In the U.S., anything shot while flying recreationally can later be sold without limitation for any amount of money. As long as the intent of the flight at launch was recreational, whatever video and photos that came from the flight can freely be sold later. Create your website and sell away, without a second thought. Even @BigAl07 fully agrees with me on this one, from his prior posts on this very subject.

Wasn’t want to argue about it was just asking and I still say grey but don’t matter. Guess I got me a new project now. ?

 

[GadgetGuy]

Wasn’t want to argue about it was just asking and I still say grey but don’t matter. Guess I got me a new project now. ?

Me neither! Just trying to help you out! Marketing the photos legally without a 107 is easy. The hard part is finding someone to pay for them!

 

[dirkclod]

Guess it would just matter how the pictures were presented.
I mean I could say I was just taking pictures for me and mine but would sell you a print.
Why I keep at looking at this is I was looking at a members pictures and had a link to SmugMug where he had them and saw where you could buy the prints ,have them put on coffee cups and so on. Well depending on where you showed your link to get lots of views it seems to me that was the grey area. I mean I could have a coffee table book printed of my
life and drone pictures and sell it. ( not I have anything great just saying ) Kinda hard for me to say what I have in my mind at moment not enough coffee yet.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Guess it would just matter how the pictures were presented.
I mean I could say I was just taking pictures for me and mine but would sell you a print.
Why I keep at looking at this is I was looking at a members pictures and had a link to SmugMug where he had them and saw where you could buy the prints ,have them put on coffee cups and so on. Well depending on where you showed your link to get lots of views it seems to me that was the grey area. I mean I could have a coffee table book printed of my
life and drone pictures and sell it. ( not I have anything great just saying ) Kinda hard for me to say what I have in my mind at moment not enough coffee yet.

Indeed! Definitely lots of possibilities available. In photography, marketing and sales ability generally trumps photographic talent. A good image, marketed well, will outsell a great image marketed poorly. The best photographers are usually not the best salespeople. Different skill sets. SmugMug does offer lots of products that can be imprinted with a custom photo, allowing the photographer to earn a small commission. Selling images already taken recreationally is a great way to subsidize the hobby! Eager to see what you come up with. Could be a blueprint for the rest of us!

 

[dirkclod]

Well it’s not really what I had in mind for me to do it it was more trying to see if it was legal. Was really just using me as an example . Seems you could be taking pictures knowing
you were going to try and sell them but saying you were a hobbist. Bypassing the having the 107 if that makes any sense .

 

[JAW]

Just wondering, if anyone can lead me in the right direction. With the footage from my drone, if I wanted to put them onto a site like shutterstock to sell?

I would agree with @dirkclod. From the way the OP's first sentence reads, it sounds like his intent is commercial.

 

[zocalo]

I would agree with @dirkclod. From the way the OP's first sentence reads, it sounds like his intent is commercial.

Second this. OP talks about the UK's CAA, so the FAA/Part 107 stuff - while possibly correct - does not apply in their case.

The CAA has made it pretty clear that they view the intent the other way; e.g. if you are already considering the possibility of putting the images online for gain *prior* to the flight - which the OP clearly is - then legally you require a PfCO.

As I noted in my earlier post, a lot of people ignore this and are not being prosecuted for it, but the CAA can - and has - successfully prosecuted pilots for breaching the commercial operation rule. Only the OP can decide whether to roll the legal dice or not, but my advice given the timescales and sums involved would be to work on your portfolio, while waiting to see what the new law brings. Hopefully, they'll let you do with your images as you will, including full and legal online commercialisation, but if not then the commercial license route will surely still be available.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I would agree with @dirkclod. From the way the OP's first sentence reads, it sounds like his intent is commercial.

The FAA rules only apply in the United States, so irrelevant for the OP, but relevant for @dirkclod, and anyone in the U.S., if he/they chose to try and make money with photos and video, previously taken while flying recreationally. Once you start making money off your recreationally taken photos, it's more difficult to argue you still have no business intent, for any photos shot thereafter.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Well it’s not really what I had in mind for me to do it it was more trying to see if it was legal. Was really just using me as an example . Seems you could be taking pictures knowing
you were going to try and sell them but saying you were a hobbist. Bypassing the having the 107 if that makes any sense .

Makes sense, and it is a loophole for anyone planning on shooting solely for spec, and then selling and peddling the images afterwards. However, the real prohibition is contracting for images before a flight with the known buyer. Shooting for hire. That requires a 107 from the beginning, and that is how 99% of any money made as a drone photographer takes place. The other 1% could get away with it, as long as they claim no business intent at the time of the flights, and claim they were shooting recreationally.

 

[Meta4]

Most of the replies in this thread are based on the idea that submitting images to a stock agency will result in sales and $$.
Unfortunately that's far from the real situation.
Making any money at all from stock libraries is very difficult and requires having outstanding images and a lot of luck.
Shutterstock have over 303 million images with 171,000 new images added every day, and there are other similar agencies.
The world is awash with images, but buyers are in short supply and have millions of images to choose from.

The potential to earn real money isn't great.
After having a lot of work on one library for three years, I made my first sale.
It was for the grand sum of $0.73 (despite their fine words about attractive minimum prices).
I gave up in disgust and removed my images.
As someone who's been there and done it, I think the suggestions that someone needs commercial drone licence just to submit images to a stock agency are beyond ridiculous.

 

[dirkclod]

Wasn’t just talking about shutterstock or any of the others meta.
If I was to say take my old pictures and make prints or whaterever and market them in anyway that I have taken
over the years is what I was referring to. Like say I just stoped flying all together and just tryed to do something with them.
Any of those agency’s wasn’t even in my mind.
Just seeing what I could do with what I had took up
to this point. This thread did kinda take a turn from the opening post.
And from what I gather I could and would be legal.
Surprises me though you had a hard time selling any as I have looked at your work for years.