UK commercial rules...to discuss..

[Hiwayman]

I wonder how we all view the following scenario with regards to it's status as a commercial flight in the UK...
If a drone pilot hopes to sell images online and finds himself out and about in his car, in a remote area, sees a beautiful sunset. He gets out of his vehicle, takes off and gets some nice images.
Some time later, a customer sees the images and wishes to purchase them..
I am trying to be devil's advocate...the flight could be deemed as having commercial intent, but there is no client at the time of the flight, no landowners consent to take off etc etc..
What's your thoughts...

 

[Thug]

Difficult one to prove either way.
I would be saying 'prove it was taken with my drone'.
It wouldn't be in the public interest to pursue it at court.
Having said that, if it was business interest you may have ot declare it.
Or how about if you had printed it for yourself and then decided to sell it on, like anything else you may buy and later sell, is there any rules broken?

Having said that, and reading your post again, the pilot was 'out hoping to sell an image', then surely the mens rea for offence is formed at that point. Then actually selling it (or even just trying to) is completing the offence.

 

[Meta4]

I am trying to be devil's advocate...the flight could be deemed as having commercial intent, but there is no client at the time of the flight, no landowners consent to take off etc etc

Don't overthink it.
You are taking photos for your own recreational pleasure.
It's highly unlikely that anyone is going to want to pay for anyone's beautiful sunset anyway.
If they do at some time in the future, that's another matter.

 

[Hiwayman]

Definitely don't want to overthink things... there's enough to think about as it is!!
I appreciate your views.

 

[Congoblue]

The thing about your flight "having commercial intent" is from the USA regulations.
In the UK the CAA defines commercial as "in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration" so it is all about actual money (or equivalent) changing hands. Whereas in the USA it is about whether you intend to use the flight for business.

I think if you get into selling drone photos regularly or set out to take sellable photos, then you would need to go commercial. Selling one or two... technically I think that would have made your flight commercial, by the UK rules, but really I don't think they are going to hunt you down and prosecute you.

 

[zocalo]

Agree with Congoblue. The UK's regulations are that *any* commercial endeavor with a drone needs a PfCO, although you could interpret it to mean it needs to be in place at the time of the transaction. e.g. you could take some photos/video on a personal flight, get your PfCO, and then sell those images. That's definitely not the same thing as doing a commercial job, getting your PfCO, and only then sending your invoice though!

The CAA has gone after actual pilots for this kind of thing (one famous case was for a flight in return for fuel costs, IIRC), but it's anyone's guess what would cause them to pursue someone monetizing drone footage without a PfCO. Maybe they'd let a low-profile monetized Youtube/Instagram feed slide, maybe not, but I think it's a pretty sure bet that if you were actively promoting the sales in any way, or were seen as an Influencer of some kind, they'd definitely be "interested".

I'm hoping we'll get a little more clarity on this, and a relaxing of the requirements for incidental commercialisation of images/footage, in the new legislation that will underpin the mandatory registration of drones over 250g in November. This would also remove the ambiguity over foreign pilots who monetize UK footage who are also highly unlikely to have any form of CAA ascent. Until then, however, if you are planning on marketing your images/video in any way at all I'd say you ought to get a PfCO to be safe. If it's much more casual and not actively promoted then that's up to you; they're unlikely to find out, and might not care if they do, but it's going to cost you a LOT in civil court if they do decide to pursue you.

 

[Meta4]

Until then, however, if you are planning on marketing your images/video in any way at all I'd say you ought to get a PfCO to be safe. If it's much more casual and not actively promoted then that's up to you; they're unlikely to find out, and might not care if they do, but it's going to cost you a LOT in civil court if they do decide to pursue you.

It's one thing to fantasize about selling aerial images, but finding someone that wants to part with cash for your images is a very different thing.
If the OP is always wondering if perhaps he might capture an image so good that it would sell, he's never go flying.

Has anyone ever heard of anyone being prosecuted for selling an aerial image or two without a PfCO?
If it's ever happened, it would be a very rare event.

 

[zocalo]

It's one thing to fantasize about selling aerial images, but finding someone that wants to part with cash for your images is a very different thing.
If the OP is always wondering if perhaps he might capture an image so good that it would sell, he's never go flying.

And yet plenty of commercial and amateur photographers make money off their imagery (myself included), imagery from drones is no different. Being successful enough to make a living off it, however, is something else entirely, and even pro photographers struggle there these days - hence other sources of income like writing books/magazine articles, running photo workshops, etc.

Has anyone ever heard of anyone being prosecuted for selling an aerial image or two without a PfCO?
If it's ever happened, it would be a very rare event.

None that I'm aware of, although the CAA is definitely aware of the issue. Drone prosecutions in general are still a relatively new thing - the very first conviction at all was only in 2014, and that was for a dangerous UAV flight not imagery, so it's hardly surprising that there are not a great deal of examples. Even less surprising when you realise just how few prosecutions the CAA actually undertakes (see PDFs at foot of this page); single digits for most years, and that includes manned aircraft operations and paperwork offences.

So, yeah, you'll almost certainly get away with it, especially if it's only as an incidental income via social media/stock imagery/etc. and not as blatent as the estate agents in the first link. Still, someone's inevitably going to be the first prosecution, so it's up to the individual to decide whether they want to risk getting the short straw or not. Besides, other than a VERY small number of bad apples, we'll all law-abiding and totally responsible pilots, right?

 

[Hiwayman]

I am the OP and I am pleased to have generated this discussion. I do hold PfCO but the concern was for the lack of preparation time for flights to obtain images which may only be available for minutes...like sunsets. If it was deemed to be commercial then I need documented risk assessment, permission to fly, etc etc.

 

[zocalo]

I am the OP and I am pleased to have generated this discussion. I do hold PfCO but the concern was for the lack of preparation time for flights to obtain images which may only be available for minutes...like sunsets. If it was deemed to be commercial then I need documented risk assessment, permission to fly, etc etc.

Yeah, that's exactly why I'm hoping for more relaxed commercial imagery requirements for casual flights post November - a "PfCO lite", perhaps. I wouldn't even like to guess how many times I've pulled up and grabbed a sunset shot with conventional cameras over the years, and drones are no different. In many cases even seconds can cost you the money shot - I've lost the light before I've been able to safely stop more times than I care to count too.

Obviously paperwork could theoretically be done after the fact, but to stay strictly legal how specific are your risk assessments? e.g. can you get away with pre-filled templates for common scenarios that just need a quick screen cap from Google Maps or something and other details filling in? While currently suspended from the governments proposal, voluntary use of a FINS and/or a quick call to any local ATC wouldn't take *too* long, and could be part of the risk assessment.

All assuming you have mobile signal, of course, which is often questionable for many of the areas where you're likely to get a great shot in the UK.

 

[Derlisz]

I have investigated the matter a bit from my own perspective. As a hobby pilot I have been contacted by TV production companies wanting to buy some if my footage found on YouTube on few occasions. I have contacted CAA to clarify if that instance would be considered a commercial operation if there was no contract before making the flights and I have not advertised my footage for sale. They have assured me that in that situation I'm free to accept payment in exchange for my hobbyist footage. I hope this helps someone.