Videography and Part 107

[theDRONEranger]

FOOD FOR THOUGHT!

A UAV pilot who wishes to place some of his/her more memorable drone flights on the YouTube is required to be Part 107 because of monetizing. That being the FAA rule.

Joe Schmuck can join the AMA, and fly by remote control his giant replica of an A-10 WartHog, complete with detachable toy bombs and a GoPro camera. After his flight he can even post his video on the YouTube. He needs no FAA certificate, that I am aware of, to post his video!

Timmy Martin (yeah, you remember, Lassie!), who is strictly a recreational flyer, can take his Mavic Air out, fly in a totally vacant field in the country 30 miles from the nearest airport and video the session and NOT be able to post it. Can anyone really explain why, as a UAV pilot, we must have a PART 107 certificate to post a video on YT, other than the FAA says so????

 

[Meta4]

A UAV pilot who wishes to place some of his/her more memorable drone flights on the YouTube is required to be Part 107 because of monetizing. That being the FAA rule.

Timmy Martin (yeah, you remember, Lassie!), who is strictly a recreational flyer, can take his Mavic Air out, fly in a totally vacant field in the country 30 miles from the nearest airport and video the session and NOT be able to post it. Can anyone really explain why, as a UAV pilot, we must have a PART 107 certificate to post a video on YT, other than the FAA says so????

You'll have trouble finding anything to support your statement that the FAA has any rule to prohibit you from putting videos on Youtube without a 107 certification.
You might have heard that or got an impression of that from forums ... but you didn't hear that from the FAA.

 

[AMann]

You'll have trouble finding anything to support your statement that the FAA has any rule to prohibit you from putting videos on Youtube without a 107 certification.
You might have heard that or got an impression of that from forums ... but you didn't hear that from the FAA.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT!

A UAV pilot who wishes to place some of his/her more memorable drone flights on the YouTube is required to be Part 107 because of monetizing. That being the FAA rule.

Joe Schmuck can join the AMA, and fly by remote control his giant replica of an A-10 WartHog, complete with detachable toy bombs and a GoPro camera. After his flight he can even post his video on the YouTube. He needs no FAA certificate, that I am aware of, to post his video!

Timmy Martin (yeah, you remember, Lassie!), who is strictly a recreational flyer, can take his Mavic Air out, fly in a totally vacant field in the country 30 miles from the nearest airport and video the session and NOT be able to post it. Can anyone really explain why, as a UAV pilot, we must have a PART 107 certificate to post a video on YT, other than the FAA says so????

Meta4 is right, just don’t accept any money from YouTube ads that your footage generates and you can post all your drone and RC based photography you want.

 

[sar104]

FOOD FOR THOUGHT!

A UAV pilot who wishes to place some of his/her more memorable drone flights on the YouTube is required to be Part 107 because of monetizing. That being the FAA rule.

Joe Schmuck can join the AMA, and fly by remote control his giant replica of an A-10 WartHog, complete with detachable toy bombs and a GoPro camera. After his flight he can even post his video on the YouTube. He needs no FAA certificate, that I am aware of, to post his video!

Timmy Martin (yeah, you remember, Lassie!), who is strictly a recreational flyer, can take his Mavic Air out, fly in a totally vacant field in the country 30 miles from the nearest airport and video the session and NOT be able to post it. Can anyone really explain why, as a UAV pilot, we must have a PART 107 certificate to post a video on YT, other than the FAA says so????

Not all YouTube content is monetized, unless you mean that some amount of advertising revenue goes to YouTube for all page views. The only statements I recall on the subject from the FAA indicated that they don't regard un-monetized YouTube content as necessarily non-recreational.

 

[Meta4]

Meta4 is right, just don’t accept any money from YouTube ads that your footage generates and you can post all your drone and RC based photography you want.

And even if you did try to monetise the Youtube video, very few actually make any real money anyway.

 

[sar104]

And even if you did try to monetise the Youtube video, very few actually make any real money anyway.

That's certainly true, but the FAA would regard even an attempt to monetize as evidence that the flights were not recreational. An unsuccessful commercial venture is still a commercial venture.

 

[theDRONEranger]

Ok, then. My understanding of the YT concept was misunderstood. I have been lead to believe, upon X number of views or hits, one received a monetary reward from YT, thus monetizing!

I’ve never quite understood that concept and to be frank, I would never expect to collect $$$ for my YT vids in 5 lifetimes.

 

[sar104]

Ok, then. My understanding of the YT concept was misunderstood. I have been lead to believe, upon X number of views or hits, one received a monetary reward from YT, thus monetizing!

I’ve never quite understood that concept and to be frank, I would never expect to collect $$$ for my YT vids in 5 lifetimes.

No - I think you have to apply to join the YouTube Partner Program in order to make money.

 

[deleted member 877]

Ok, then. My understanding of the YT concept was misunderstood. I have been lead to believe, upon X number of views or hits, one received a monetary reward from YT, thus monetizing!

I’ve never quite understood that concept and to be frank, I would never expect to collect $$$ for my YT vids in 5 lifetimes.

To make any money from your TouTube channel you need to complete a process which includes setting up Google AdSense.

 

[theDRONEranger]

To make any money from your TouTube channel you need to complete a process which includes setting up Google AdSense.

Learning new stuff everyday.
I once posted a video I made showing how to assemble an AR-15. YouTube gave me a strike, removed the video, place me on a probation period for posting a video that showed how to assemble an AR-15.

Wanna see something funny?

Go to YouTube and do a search for:
“How to assemble an AR-15”
Seriously, do the search.
I was banned for a specified time period!

 

[kjcbid54]

Regardless of Youtube and their monetization policies or any other site that you could post videos, it is the purpose of the flight that is relevant. In the moment you took off the ground for that flight, what was your intent? Was it to get recreational pictures and video for your own enjoyment? or was it with the intent to sell the footage? If it was the former, and you then posted the footage on YT and that video happened to generate ad revenue, that does not change the intent of the flight being recreational. Therefore you are not in violation of Part 107.

 

[theDRONEranger]

Regardless of Youtube and their monetization policies or any other site that you could post videos, it is the purpose of the flight that is relevant. In the moment you took off the ground for that flight, what was your intent? Was it to get recreational pictures and video for your own enjoyment? or was it with the intent to sell the footage? If it was the former, and you then posted the footage on YT and that video happened to generate ad revenue, that does not change the intent of the flight being recreational. Therefore you are not in violation of Part 107.

Your answer I like. You are quite correct!

 

[deleted member 877]

Regardless of Youtube and their monetization policies or any other site that you could post videos, it is the purpose of the flight that is relevant. In the moment you took off the ground for that flight, what was your intent? Was it to get recreational pictures and video for your own enjoyment? or was it with the intent to sell the footage? If it was the former, and you then posted the footage on YT and that video happened to generate ad revenue, that does not change the intent of the flight being recreational. Therefore you are not in violation of Part 107.

Has this been tested in court? Quite often, in Law, intent has little or no bearing on whether or not a law is deemed to be broken.

 

[sar104]

Has this been tested in court? Quite often, in Law, intent has little or no bearing on whether or not a law is deemed to be broken.

That's true - except when the law is specifically about the intent. I'm not aware that it's been tested - the statement is based on the FAA's wording of the regulations which clearly state that it is the intent that determines whether a flight can be exempt from Part 107.

 

[deleted member 877]

That's true - except when the law is specifically about the intent. I'm not aware that it's been tested - the statement is based on the FAA's wording of the regulations which clearly state that it is the intent that determines whether a flight can be exempt from Part 107.

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[TR Ganey]

Intent has everything to do with the law. If you kill someone but did not mean to or intend to you might get charged with manslaughter. If you intended to kill them from the beginning then you'd likely be charged with 1st degree murder. Yep, it is important to consider intent.

 

[deleted member 877]

Intent has everything to do with the law. If you kill someone but did not mean to or intend to you might get charged with manslaughter. If you intended to kill them from the beginning then you'd likely be charged with 1st degree murder. Yep, it is important to consider intent.

But then there are many cases where Intent has no bearing such as when someone pleads that they didn't intend to exceed the speed limit. In the vast majority of cases that will not be considered as a mitigating factor.

Also, it is common knowledge that ignorance of the law is no defence. Defendants often plead that they didn't intend to break a law because they didn't know that law existed. Again most of the time that is not deemed to be a mitigating factor.

I used the word "often" as opposed to "always" because of course, I am aware that Intent is sometimes taken into account (as in your example) when judges/juries convict. Your stating that "Intent has everything to do with the law" would seem to imply that you think I believe that Intent has nothing to do with the law. If that is the case then it is an incorrect assumption.