What to charge for a license

[wdfly]

Here is another article that discusses it in-depth.

The Ultimate Guide to the FAA Airman Knowledge Test

Gain a comprehensive understanding of the Part 107 FAA Drone Regulations for commercial drone use with our nationwide UAV pilot training school!

www.dartdrones.com

 

[wdfly]

and from the FAA's site:

"The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules for small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), or “drone,” operations cover a broad spectrum of commercial and government uses for drones weighing less than 55 pounds. Highlights of the rule, 14 CFR Part 107, follow.

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/small-unmanned-aircraft-systems-uas-regulations-part-107

If you make any money from flying your drone, that is commercial use.

Now, do I think they are going to send storm troopers after you, probably not, but it is pretty clear 107 is required for commercial use.

 

[Bad Santa]

Hey, it's on the internet. It MUST be true.

 

[Meta4]

I'm sorry but I do not agree with that assessment.
They specifically state fines and/or jail for commercial use without a license. Commercial use is any use of anything that comes from the flight being used for monetary purposes.

That might be your mis-interpretation of the rules, but that's not what the rules actually say.
Their rules are only about the flight.
If a flight was carried out legally in the past, it cannot become an illegal flight at some time in the future.

 

[wdfly]

That might be your mis-interpretation of the rules, but that's not what the rules actually say.
Their rules are only about the flight.
If a flight was carried out legally in the past, it cannot become an illegal flight at some time in the future.

Or it may be your misinterpretation of the rules, and you cannot monetize non-commercial drone flights. I believe it may be in everyone's best interests to get the FAA to clarify this, but getting the government to do that will be difficult I believe. I am of the strong opinion that before anyone sells anything from a flight, such as the flight itself or selling video/images, you should complete your 107 first since it specifically states it is required for commercial use, and anytime anyone sells anything, it becomes a commercial act in some way.

An example of what I am trying to say is this: If I work on a friend's computer and do not charge them to do so, that is perfectly fine for me to do so, if I charge them money to do so, that is a commercial act, and I am legally required to have a business license and report this income for tax purposes. I have to do this even if I do not specifically charge them, and they just slip me some cash after the fact; the latter action would not even have to happen immediately, but once they pay me, it's a commercial/business action and becomes a transaction that is covered by business taxation laws and would be illegal for me to not report it etc.

 

[wdfly]

I have submitted an inquiry with the FAA, if I am wrong I will happily eat crow on this but I do not believe I am as it would be a rare exception to pretty much every other business activity.

 

[MavicAir2Marc]

The only classification of flight is whether it is recreational or not at the time it is flown. The part 107 vs recreational argument has absolutely zero to do with images recorded, only the purpose of the flight itself when it was flown.

 

[wdfly]

The only classification of flight is whether it is recreational or not at the time it is flown. The part 107 vs recreational argument has absolutely zero to do with images recorded, only the purpose of the flight itself when it was flown.

Perhaps, however if you sell the images/video I am very confident that it makes the flight a commercial flight, even if it was not at the time. I cannot think many other reasons to fly a drone commercially than to take pictures and video to sell beyond things like SAR, inspections, and to let people fly them for fun or drone shows. For inspections you would almost certainly provide the footage for the customer. I have submitted a question to the FAA and will post their reply once I receive it. I am interested in getting this clarified, if for no other reason than to satiate my curiosity on the matter.

If the FAA did not differentiate these flights and the footage from them between commercial and recreational, I cannot see much of a reason to have the licensure in the first place.

 

[Bad Santa]

"Ohhh, that's a nice painting you have on your wall. Can I buy it from you?"
I only paint for fun. I don't sell my artwork.
"But, it's so good. It would look amazing in my foyer"
Well, I can't legally sell it to you because that would make it a commercial transaction and I don't have a license and I'd have to pay taxes and all that.
"Oh, that makes sense"

NO IT WOULDN"T MAKE SENSE!!!!!!
It's a stupid argument

 

[mavic3usa]

Perhaps, however if you sell the images/video I am very confident that it makes the flight a commercial flight, even if it was not at the time. I cannot think many other reasons to fly a drone commercially than to take pictures and video to sell beyond things like SAR, inspections, and to let people fly them for fun or drone shows. For inspections you would almost certainly provide the footage for the customer. I have submitted a question to the FAA and will post their reply once I receive it. I am interested in getting this clarified, if for no other reason than to satiate my curiosity on the matter.

If the FAA did not differentiate these flights and the footage from them between commercial and recreational, I cannot see much of a reason to have the licensure in the first place.

Perhaps you should post the question you sent to the FAA so we all know for sure that you understand the issue because it sounds like you don't.

So if I have a "friend" who has a drone and he flies recreationally and he send me a video of his flight for fun and I know he doesn't have a part 107, if unprompted I send him $1 thru PayPal and marked (thanks for the drone video of my roof) and I cc: the FAA, he's in trouble, right?

The FAA doesn't get to decide the disposition of a video clip that appears to be captured using a drone. Neither does the IRS, not in a free country. Only in your government-controlled world would anyone even think of that. You are wrong and I gotta tell you, many of us aren't going to care how the FAA responds to your question because we already have our answer and we have more No's then Yes's and just because you get a Yes to your particular question means nothing; I guess it applied to you only....not me. You're wrong.

Happy New Year!

 

[wdfly]

"Ohhh, that's a nice painting you have on your wall. Can I buy it from you?"
I only paint for fun. I don't sell my artwork.
"But, it's so good. It would look amazing in my foyer"
Well, I can't legally sell it to you because that would make it a commercial transaction and I don't have a license and I'd have to pay taxes and all that.
"Oh, that makes sense"

NO IT WOULDN"T MAKE SENSE!!!!!!
It's a stupid argument

One does not need a license to paint, but one does to fly drones commercially. Your argument does not make much sense. By what you are saying is I could fly around a new neighborhood being built for recreational purposes then sell all the images and video I might have taken for profit but still say I was doing it recreationally. It does not make sense to me to say that is OK given the circumstances of part 107. We will hopefully have a definitive answer soon. I honestly hope you are all right but I am fairly confident that you are not.

 

[Bad Santa]

One does not need a license to paint, but one does to fly drones commercially. Your argument does not make much sense. By what you are saying is I could fly around a new neighborhood being built for recreational purposes then sell all the images and video I might have taken for profit but still say I was doing it recreationally. It does not make sense to me to say that is OK given the circumstances of part 107. We will hopefully have a definitive answer soon. I honestly hope you are all right but I am fairly confident that you are not.

OK, I'll play your game.

You were flying around, recreationally, where houses were being built.
A week later you get a knock on your door.

"Hello, I represent ABC insurance company. I was told you were flying a drone last Tuesday. The builders said last Wednesday there was some equipment damaged but we think it was damaged before that. Could we buy your video to see if the equipment was damaged or intact on that Tuesday?"

"Yeah, no, I can't do that. I was flying recreationally and it would be illegal to use that video for processes where money could be involved."

 

[wdfly]

OK, I'll play your game.

You were flying around, recreationally, where houses were being built.
A week later you get a knock on your door.

"Hello, I represent ABC insurance company. I was told you were flying a drone last Tuesday. The builders said last Wednesday there was some equipment damaged but we think it was damaged before that. Could we buy your video to see if the equipment was damaged or intact on that Tuesday?"

"Yeah, no, I can't do that. I was flying recreationally and it would be illegal to use that video for processes where money could be involved."

yes that is very close to what I would say if that were the case and I did not have a 107 certificate. I would inform them that I was not licensed to sell or use my footage commercially and therefore I could not help them. Again, I hope I am wrong but I do not believe that I am simply because of the 107 requirement for commercial use, and being a business owner, I can assure you the government takes an extensive interpretation of the phrase commercial use.

Now, that I have said that, if the scenario played out with my current situation, being licensed for commercial use, I would have them fill out several forms, such as an indemnity document and some forms that would restrict their use of my footage to only the task at hand etc. I would also tell them that I would need to ensure no privacy rights would be violated by editing the video/images down to only what they were asking to see. I would also provide them with a W-9 for tax purposes and report the income on my tax filings and add more income to my quarterly estimated tax payments. These are things that business owners must concern themselves with almost daily. Speaking of estimated taxes, it is time for me to mortgage my other kidney to keep Uncle Sam at bay.

 

[mavic3usa]

yes that is very close to what I would say if that were the case and I did not have a 107 certificate. I would inform them that I was not licensed to sell or use my footage commercially and therefore I could not help them. Again, I hope I am wrong but I do not believe that I am simply because of the 107 requirement for commercial use, and being a business owner, I can assure you the government takes an extensive interpretation of the phrase commercial use.

Now, that I have said that, if the scenario played out with my current situation, being licensed for commercial use, I would have them fill out several forms, such as an indemnity document and some forms that would restrict their use of my footage to only the task at hand etc. I would also tell them that I would need to ensure no privacy rights would be violated by editing the video/images down to only what they were asking to see. I would also provide them with a W-9 for tax purposes and report the income on my tax filings and add more income to my quarterly estimated tax payments. These are things that business owners must concern themselves with almost daily. Speaking of estimated taxes, it is time for me to mortgage my other kidney to keep Uncle Sam at bay.

No one is saying you shouldn't do the things you mentioned. If that's the way you want to run your business, fine. We are just saying the government doesn't require it by law. There is no law that says "If you sell your commercial footage, these are the things you need to do:" The government doesn't not explicitly prohibit what you mentioned.

On top of that, even with the references you make with regard to part 107 and commercial activities, if you make that stretch, fine. However, please limit it to just the video that you took when you performed the "commercial" work. It doesn't apply to the millions and millions of videos everyone else recorded and captured not knowing their intent especially if they flew their drone intending only to have fun. It's almost as if you are saying drone footage that was captured without a part 107 cannot ever be sold.

I think you're being a bit disingenuous with your pronouncements specifically about drone footage being regulated by the FAA in a way that is different from basically everything else in the world. Americans value freedom and we don't like licenses and permits so we limit that to ONLY what the government has control over; nothing more. It's almost as if you are carving out special circumstances in a sort of "privileged" way meaning only people with part 107 can sell drone footage, ever; period and no one can do it legally. Well my friend, there's something called the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, are you familiar with it?

 

[Bad Santa]

Satire:

"Well, I can't sell you my video as I was flying recreationally and I don't have a commercial Part 107 certificate.
Hey, as long as you're here, are you interested in buying a memory card? It's used and all but I just tested it last Tuesday when I had it in my drone doing a recreational flight around the construction site.

$500 and it's yours."

 

[wdfly]

No one is saying you shouldn't do the things you mentioned. If that's the way you want to run your business, fine. We are just saying the government doesn't require it by law. There is no law that says "If you sell your commercial footage, these are the things you need to do:" The government doesn't not explicitly prohibit what you mentioned.

On top of that, even with the references you make with regard to part 107 and commercial activities, if you make that stretch, fine. However, please limit it to just the video that you took when you performed the "commercial" work. It doesn't apply to the millions and millions of videos everyone else recorded and captured not knowing their intent especially if they flew their drone intending only to have fun. It's almost as if you are saying drone footage that was captured without a part 107 cannot ever be sold.

I think you're being a bit disingenuous with your pronouncements specifically about drone footage being regulated by the FAA in a way that is different from basically everything else in the world. Americans value freedom and we don't like licenses and permits so we limit that to ONLY what the government has control over; nothing more. It's almost as if you are carving out special circumstances in a sort of "privileged" way meaning only people with part 107 can sell drone footage, ever; period and no one can do it legally. Well my friend, there's something called the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, are you familiar with it?

I agree with you about freedom. Personally I’m 100% opposed to the licensure part of this. I would end it today if I could. As I’ve said before, I hope you are correct but knowing how rules and regs work (I teach cyber security at a college and run an IT company) I can easily see how what I am saying is sadly correct. I couldn’t care less what people do, my only intent is to help someone not get into trouble if what I am saying is how it is. First fine is about $30k per incident and I’ve seen upwards of $250k and prison time for subsequent violations. I do not believe they would be so steep on punishment if they were lax on the rules.

 

[wdfly]

Satire:

"Well, I can't sell you my video as I was flying recreationally and I don't have a commercial Part 107 certificate.
Hey, as long as you're here, are you interested in buying a memory card? It's used and all but I just tested it last Tuesday when I had it in my drone doing a recreational flight around the construction site.

$500 and it's yours."

That is a good loophole. lol hide it under a rock and sell them a map to it.

 

[wdfly]

Another thing I recommend is anyone with 107 should set up an LLC and get drone insurance. I carry a $1 million dollar policy on my drones, it’s excessive but if I crash into a mansion I want to be covered.

 

[MavicAir2Marc]

I'm an FAA Drone Pro and go to the meetings every 6 months and this has been explicitly brought up time after time and you are incorrect. The only thing that matters is the intent of the flight, there is nothing about imagery tied to the flight. The large fines you are talking about are people that have violated the rules by repeatedly flying without a license and posting to a monetized You Tube channel or violating manned aircraft safety or TFRs. Most of the time, it is about doing stupid/dangerous things with a drone. The FAA prefers education to civil/criminal penalties but sometimes they are left with no choice.

 

[wdfly]

I'm an FAA Drone Pro and go to the meetings every 6 months and this has been explicitly brought up time after time and you are incorrect. The only thing that matters is the intent of the flight, there is nothing about imagery tied to the flight. The large fines you are talking about are people that have violated the rules by repeatedly flying without a license and posting to a monetized You Tube channel or violating manned aircraft safety or TFRs. Most of the time, it is about doing stupid/dangerous things with a drone. The FAA prefers education to civil/criminal penalties but sometimes they are left with no choice.

I hope you are correct. I’m waiting to get a response from the FAA because I know other professionals who are not saying this that are also in pretty deep with the FAA, one of which is our department chair of the aviation program at my school who told me I needed 107 to monetize any aspect of a flight including the footage.

It makes sense they prefer education over enforcement but it seems by not requiring 107 to monetize footage would be a rather large loophole for what amounts to a commercial license. It just does not make sense to me that the FAA would be so different than practically every other part of government on this.