Using drone photos to sell home

[pt_hikes]

Just a quick question here but would I be required to have a part 107 license to take pictures of my house to sell. If its selling through an agent or private sale? What if it's a friends home? Thank you!

 

[dirkclod]

Yes.

 

[PhantomFandom]

Just a quick question here but would I be required to have a part 107 license to take pictures of my house to sell. If its selling through an agent or private sale? What if it's a friends home? Thank you!

Does not matter if it is through an agent or private sale. Does not matter if it is a friend's house or your home. You need a Part 107 license for all of those situations.

 

[Gkinghrn]

Legally yes ... but if it was me I’d just check with my neighbours and check they are ok with it ... then do it... I had my lad put his drone over my house to check the roof ... took all of 10 minutes ..nobody said a word..

Is someone really going to ask if your drone pictures were taken by someone with that certification?

 

[Motorcycle Rider]

I would do it, but then again I also sometimes drive 81 kms/hr in an 80 zone.

 

[ChipDjipro]

Just do it no one can tell you you can’t take pictures of your house to sell it. Any house for that matter.

 

[dawgpilot]

Just do it no one can tell you you can’t take pictures of your house to sell it. Any house for that matter.

Strictly speaking, it's not the picture taking that is illegal without a 107. It's a flight that is being done for non-recreational purposes.

 

[lookout]

Can't understand why I need a 107 to sell pictures of anything I take with a quad/drone. Something entirely wrong with the concept of this being a commercial venture that I need to have a operators' license for. Same argument for tag/tax/title/license/registration for my car.

 

[ChipDjipro]

Strictly speaking, it's not the picture taking that is illegal without a 107. It's a flight that is being done for non-recreational purposes.

What fliying over your house.

 

[dawgpilot]

Can't understand why I need a 107 to sell pictures of anything I take with a quad/drone. Something entirely wrong with the concept of this being a commercial venture that I need to have a operators' license for. Same argument for tag/tax/title/license/registration for my car.

Because the law that allows you to fly a drone at all without having a Part 107 certificate only applies if the flight is purely recreational in nature. If you are flying a drone to take pictures of your house (to sell the home), then you have shown non-recreational intent so the exception for recreational flyers no longer applies. Thus, without having a Part 107 certificate, you are flying a drone illegally then.

 

[Motorcycle Rider]

An argument can be made, that it was still fun to do, so is recreational to.

 

[sar104]

An argument can be made, that it was still fun to do, so is recreational to.

You can make that your definition of recreational, but it's not the FAA's definition, which is what matters.

 

[dirkclod]

@pt_hikes you can listen to all these saying do it but if
your intent is to fly up get pictures to list a house you
have to have your 107. I can’t site you the laws like @BigAl07
can but all it would take is 1 part 107 holder to turn you in and see how many help you with the fine . You have to
have a Part 107 to do what you want.

 

[sar104]

Can't understand why I need a 107 to sell pictures of anything I take with a quad/drone. Something entirely wrong with the concept of this being a commercial venture that I need to have a operators' license for. Same argument for tag/tax/title/license/registration for my car.

That's because you don't understand 14 CFR Part 107 and the recreational flight exception. By default, all sUAS flights in the US fall under Part 107 and require a Part 107 RPIC license. The exception that allows you to fly recreationally is just that - a limited exception that was approved by congress to accommodate the model aircraft hobby community. But now many recreational drone pilots want to stretch that accommodation to the limit and beyond, apparently under the misapprehension that they have some kind of right to fly sUAS around in the NAS for whatever purpose they choose and that Part 107 should be the exception, although for what is generally not quite clear.

 

[BigAl07]

Can't understand why I need a 107 to sell pictures of anything I take with a quad/drone. Something entirely wrong with the concept of this being a commercial venture that I need to have a operators' license for. Same argument for tag/tax/title/license/registration for my car.

Let's look at it like this...

You are using the pictures to SELL a home. Selling a home is a COMMERCIAL endeavor so it BLATANTLY falls under Part 107. How in the world could taking images to SELL your home be not commercial is mind boggling.

@sar104 has explained it perfectly and accurately.

 

[BigAl07]

Legally yes ... but if it was me I’d just check with my neighbours and check they are ok with it ... then do it... I had my lad put his drone over my house to check the roof ... took all of 10 minutes ..nobody said a word..

Is someone really going to ask if your drone pictures were taken by someone with that certification?

Many MLS now require the agent to provide proof of RPIC before they will even use an Aerial Image.

 

[lookout]

That's because you don't understand 14 CFR Part 107 and the recreational flight exception. By default, all sUAS flights in the US fall under Part 107 and require a Part 107 RPIC license. The exception that allows you to fly recreationally is just that - a limited exception that was approved by congress to accommodate the model aircraft hobby community. But now many recreational drone pilots want to stretch that accommodation to the limit and beyond, apparently under the misapprehension that they have some kind of right to fly sUAS around in the NAS for whatever purpose they choose and that Part 107 should be the exception, although for what is generally not quite clear.

Right, the typical dummy shouldn't be going around in the NAS without having any idea what they are doing which is what I would expect the FAA to be doing in order to reduce the incursions. For right now, the 61/91 guys can just add the 107 to their certifications as a separate license. They already have an idea of what's going on. So they expect the 107 only guys to be on par with 61/91 guys.

The modelers haven't had any problems the whole time they've been active, and the use of the word recreational use in being used vaguely. They're wondering why they are having to be a part of the drone/quad community now. Remote ID for them even, which is not making sense to them, since they fly in a field or even the quad/drone community either carrying in the AMA idea, the FRIA (wait...something weird here about this juncture). And since they have more toys than the quad/drone guys, the concept of registration is a dog for them also. So while they get the recreational stamp, they are unequivocally penalized when it comes to all of those toys they have. But if under recreational, they would all be under one registration, making life easier for them.

So maybe this is an issue with CONgress and not the FAA or they didn't bother to update their verbage to reflect what they really meant to say in all of the revisions over time. They wouldn't let the FAA do drone registration due to lack of authorization to do so, but turned around and granted it to them anyway. And registration of a quad/drone outside of 107 doesn't make sense. It's sitting on a shelf collecting dust, until I turn it back on and then the dust just *magically* disappears. The verbage is funny there: If you should've registered it, but you didn't you get a big fine. But since as you've said 107 is required of all flights, all drones would have to be registered (and it adds the verbage regardless of weight, which I don't know that makes any difference anyway). So where is the condition that determines whether you should've or not (seems like it doesn't exist or no longer exists even <1/2 lb if used for 107 it has to be registered)?

 

[lookout]

Let's look at it like this...

You are using the pictures to SELL a home. Selling a home is a COMMERCIAL endeavor so it BLATANTLY falls under Part 107. How in the world could taking images to SELL your home be not commercial is mind boggling.

@sar104 has explained it perfectly and accurately.

But it conflicts with part 107 being used for all sUAS flights.

I can use a regular camera without needing yet another license to use it even if I'm using it commercially to sell a home. Now maybe I can't get that great roof shot with it, unless I take a possible liability in getting it, which makes the drone suitable for that purpose. But being only 20 feet up to get the shot is not going to poke much of a hole in the NAS, other than the verbage about the airspace above the property, anything above the blades of grass.

And the commercial application is determined by yet another government agency to which I would be enlisted, most likely, and not the FAA per se. The FAA doesn't determine the commercial use, but rather a business license or some other paperwork entitled from another relevant agency.

The drone delivery program may flop, if the commercial license becomes an amazon greed thing when all packages regardless of where they are going get delivered to
1 porch pirate
Anywhere, USA

It would definitely make their trade a profitable one and without much effort in guessing where the deliveries are going. They'd no longer have to go from porch to porch looking for packages as their work would be cut out for them.

 

[dirkclod]

You can try and debate this but is going to
take this thread OT. His question was answered and that’s that . Let’s not confuse him with what’s been argued in many
threads. He can do it and chances are nothing will be said but he still would be illegal.

 

[sar104]

Right, the typical dummy shouldn't be going around in the NAS without having any idea what they are doing which is what I would expect the FAA to be doing in order to reduce the incursions. For right now, the 61/91 guys can just add the 107 to their certifications as a separate license. They already have an idea of what's going on. So they expect the 107 only guys to be on par with 61/91 guys.

I've no idea where you are going with that.

The modelers haven't had any problems the whole time they've been active, and the use of the word recreational use in being used vaguely. They're wondering why they are having to be a part of the drone/quad community now.

That's right - they have been well and truly hosed by the explosion of ignorant and irresponsible consumer sUAS use.

Remote ID for them even, which is not making sense to them, since they fly in a field or even the quad/drone community either carrying in the AMA idea, the FRIA (wait...something weird here about this juncture).

Flying at AMA fields they won't need RemoteID.

And since they have more toys than the quad/drone guys, the concept of registration is a dog for them also. So while they get the recreational stamp, they are unequivocally penalized when it comes to all of those toys they have. But if under recreational, they would all be under one registration, making life easier for them.

They do fall under recreational, so what's the registration problem?

So maybe this is an issue with CONgress and not the FAA or they didn't bother to update their verbage to reflect what they really meant to say in all of the revisions over time. They wouldn't let the FAA do drone registration due to lack of authorization to do so, but turned around and granted it to them anyway. And registration of a quad/drone outside of 107 doesn't make sense.

Why doesn't it make sense?

It's sitting on a shelf collecting dust, until I turn it back on and then the dust just *magically* disappears.

If you don't use it then you don't need to register it.

The verbage is funny there: If you should've registered it, but you didn't you get a big fine.

No - no idea at all what you are getting at there either.

But since as you've said 107 is required of all flights, all drones would have to be registered (and it adds the verbage regardless of weight, which I don't know that makes any difference anyway). So where is the condition that determines whether you should've or not (seems like it doesn't exist or no longer exists even <1/2 lb if used for 107 it has to be registered)?

No - I said that Part 107 is the overarching sUAS law, and the the recreational exception exempts recreational users from some of the Part 107 requirements. Which requirements are exempted is perfectly clear. A poor choice of battle if you are hoping to pin your argument on non-existent confusion on that issue. You just need to read the relevant laws.

I really have to ask - are you just arguing for the sake of it now? Much though I enjoy a good debate I have this sneaking suspicion that you are yanking my chain.