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!
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!
Just do it no one can tell you you can’t take pictures of your house to sell it. Any house for that matter.
What fliying over your house.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.
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.
An argument can be made, that it was still fun to do, so is recreational to.
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
But it conflicts with part 107 being used for all sUAS flights.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.
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)?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.