UAS video used in athletic scholarship video (Commercial or Hobby?)

[kwilliams6045]

Would someone need a Part 107 Remote Pilot license to shoot an athletic scholarship video free of charge? The video will be used to hopefully get a scholarship, so would that be for "financial gain"?

I say "yes", the UAS operator would need a license, but I'd like to hear your thoughts..

Thanks!!!

 

[sar104]

Would someone need a Part 107 Remote Pilot license to shoot an athletic scholarship video free of charge? The video will be used to hopefully get a scholarship, so would that be for "financial gain"?

I say "yes", the UAS operator would need a license, but I'd like to hear your thoughts..

Thanks!!!

Yes - it's Part 107. It's not financial gain that makes it Part 107, it's not being a purely recreational flight that means it doesn't fall under the recreational exemption from Part 107.

 

[kwilliams6045]

Yes - it's Part 107. It's not financial gain that makes it Part 107, it's not being a purely recreational flight that means it doesn't fall under the recreational exemption from Part 107.

I was under the assumption that if you were not utilizing the aircraft for financial gain (commercially), you were good.

So, what defines "recreational or hobby"? Couldn't the pilot say that he shoots these scholarship videos as a hobby?

 

[sar104]

I was under the assumption that if you were not utilizing the aircraft for financial gain (commercially), you were good.

That's a very widespread misunderstanding of the law, which doesn't even mention the word "commercial". All civil sUAS operations are regulated by Part 107 unless they qualify for the recreational exemption:

Sec. 44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned
aircraft
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (e), and
notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person
may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or
operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the
operation adheres to all of the following limitations:
(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational
purposes.

So, what defines "recreational or hobby"? Couldn't the pilot say that he shoots these scholarship videos as a hobby?

As long as he has no intention of using them, for example to acquire a scholarship, maybe yes. So no - of course not.

An FAA interpretation of the exemption:

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. A definition of “hobby” is a “pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at www.merriam-webster.com (last accessed June 9, 2014). A definition of recreation is “refreshment of strength and spirits after work; a means of refreshment or diversion.” Id. These uses are consistent with the FAA’s 2007 policy on model aircraft in which the Agency stated model aircraft operating guidelines did not apply to “persons or companies for business purposes.” See 72 FR at 6690.​

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. Likewise, flights that are in furtherance of a business, or incidental to a person’s business, would not be a hobby or recreation flight.​

 

[crlmjohnson]

Would someone need a Part 107 Remote Pilot license to shoot an athletic scholarship video free of charge? The video will be used to hopefully get a scholarship, so would that be for "financial gain"?

I say "yes", the UAS operator would need a license, but I'd like to hear your thoughts..

Thanks!!!

yes...something for something

 

[jgullam]

yes...something for something

That's a very widespread misunderstanding of the law, which doesn't even mention the word "commercial". All civil sUAS operations are regulated by Part 107 unless they qualify for the recreational exemption:

Sec. 44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned
aircraft
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (e), and
notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person
may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or
operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the
operation adheres to all of the following limitations:
(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational
purposes.



As long as he has no intention of using them, for example to acquire a scholarship, maybe yes. So no - of course not.

An FAA interpretation of the exemption:

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. A definition of “hobby” is a “pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at www.merriam-webster.com (last accessed June 9, 2014). A definition of recreation is “refreshment of strength and spirits after work; a means of refreshment or diversion.” Id. These uses are consistent with the FAA’s 2007 policy on model aircraft in which the Agency stated model aircraft operating guidelines did not apply to “persons or companies for business purposes.” See 72 FR at 6690.​

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. Likewise, flights that are in furtherance of a business, or incidental to a person’s business, would not be a hobby or recreation flight.​

Let me throw in a twist.
It’s not my scholarship, not my kid’s scholarship. My friend says “hey, could you take some drone shots of my kid for his application?” I don’t get any $, I don’t save any $, he doesn’t even offer me a beer.
Just to keep the example contained let’s say he would NOT have hired a licensed pilot or photographer if I hadn’t done it, So I didn’t take work away from a professional.
I do it because I like to fly and want to improve my skills.
Thoughts?

 

[sar104]

Let me throw in a twist.
It’s not my scholarship, not my kid’s scholarship. My friend says “hey, could you take some drone shots of my kid for his application?” I don’t get any $, I don’t save any $, he doesn’t even offer me a beer.
Just to keep the example contained let’s say he would NOT have hired a licensed pilot or photographer if I hadn’t done it, So I didn’t take work away from a professional.
I do it because I like to fly and want to improve my skills.
Thoughts?

From a purely legal perspective it's still unambiguous - the flight does not have a recreational purpose, so it falls under Part 107. The criterion has nothing to do with money, or taking business from a professional.

 

[crlmjohnson]

I agree. Just be careful with what you are doing with your drone pictures and video without getting your license.