What to charge for a license

[Meta4]

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

This topic is the subject of much misunderstanding and the topic comes up frequently.
I hope you hear from someone at the FAA who actually knows his topic rather than just someone who says what he imagines the rules are like you or your "other professionals" have been doing.

In the past it hasn't always been easy to get accurate information from FAA personnel and there have been plenty of incidents where they have just told their uninformed personal opinion.

 

[wdfly]

This topic is the subject of much misunderstanding and the topic comes up frequently.
I hope you hear from someone at the FAA who actually knows his topic rather than just someone who says what he imagines the rules are like you or your "other professionals" have been doing.

In the past it hasn't always been easy to get accurate information from FAA personnel and there have been plenty of incidents where they have just told their uninformed personal opinion.

I could see that from government types. I see it a lot in academia, people just talk out of their backside. If they tell me what I expect them to tell me, I’ll ask them to cite the regulation to prove they are not just giving a ChatGPT answer.

 

[mavic3usa]

....who told me I needed 107 to monetize any aspect of a flight including the footage.

This is true, if you take off with your drone and you intend to capture footage that you will later monetize, then you need to have a part 107 license for this flight to be legal. The part 107 license does not make the footage legal and the part 107 doesn't make the sale of the footage legal. The part 107 license makes the flight with the intent to perform commercial work in furtherance of a business legal.

If you don't have a part 107 when you do this, you could be in violation of any FAA rules and regulations regarding flying your drone without having the proper license and without qualifying for the exception. However, you will not be violating any FAA rules or regulations regarding selling footage, capturing footage, etc. because there are no applicable FAA rules or regulations. Therefore there is no FAA rules or regulation which prohibits you from selling videos or photos under any circumstances.

Perhaps you are thinking if you sell and/or monetize a bunch of videos or photos and you don't have a part 107 then it is reasonable to assume your related drone flights might be illegal....and, yes that is probably true. It is likely the FAA could determine that your flights to capture those videos/photos were indeed commercial flights and not purely recreational. Not always easy to make that determination but that's where the educations come in (i.e. going forward.....).

If you indeed took off with only fun flight in mind and you took pictures of the city park and the local church and the busy intersection and then a year later someone saw those pictures and wanted to compensate you for them, my opinion is you are ok to proceed without a part 107 at your own risk but this is not legal advice so ymmv. This thinking is "are your flights legal or not" instead of "is the sale legal or not." The FAA manages drone flights and flight safety; not sales and distribution of drone content.

 

[wdfly]

Perhaps you are thinking if you sell and/or monetize a bunch of videos or photos and you don't have a part 107 then it is reasonable to assume your related drone flights might be illegal....and, yes that is probably true. It is likely the FAA could determine that your flights to capture those videos/photos were indeed commercial flights and not purely recreational. Not always easy to make that determination but that's where the educations come in (i.e. going forward.....).

This is pretty much what I am concerned about, one must take into account that if the FAA ever questioned you on this they could easily say that since you sold the footage that makes that flight a commercial flight and could subject you to the penalties of unlicensed commercial flight. Now I do not believe they have a team of enforcers scouring the internet looking for these things but with their being a mechanism for civilian reporting, all it would take is some jacka** to "drop a dime" and report you for selling footage to start an inquiry. I also stand by my statement about the government taking a broad liberty of the definition of the term "commercial" when it comes to this. Again I really hope I am wrong and that you are all correct as I think it's ridiculous that we have to get a license to make a buck doing a hobby when the government has so many ways to take money from us already.

 

[mavic3usa]

This is pretty much what I am concerned about, one must take into account that if the FAA ever questioned you on this they could easily say that since you sold the footage that makes that flight a commercial flight and could subject you to the penalties of unlicensed commercial flight. Now I do not believe they have a team of enforcers scouring the internet looking for these things but with their being a mechanism for civilian reporting, all it would take is some jacka** to "drop a dime" and report you for selling footage to start an inquiry. I also stand by my statement about the government taking a broad liberty of the definition of the term "commercial" when it comes to this. Again I really hope I am wrong and that you are all correct as I think it's ridiculous that we have to get a license to make a buck doing a hobby when the government has so many ways to take money from us already.

For sure that will happen but it usually takes place when someone is actually doing business without a license. For example, a channel on YT where the person is showing off their landscape business but they keep showing a bunch of drone footage. Someone who is watching may suspect they don't have a part 107 so they tip off the FAA and since the FAA often has to respond to "complaints" they follow up with the YT channel and educate and suggest they get their part 107 if they want to continue to use their drone to promote their business.

I'm not a fan of this but that's the way it is. Not sure this happens in most other countries but it does in the US for now. Instead I support a model that aligns with all other business use cases in other categories where there is a safety interest involved.

 

[Bad Santa]

So, I asked a question of someone who has been in flight instruction for a lot of years.
Specifically, the question was regarding "commercial pilot licenses".
So, here's the jist.
"Can a pilot, who does not possess a commercial license, take someone up flying if the passenger pays them?"
NO!!
"Can a pilot, who does not possess a commercial license, take pictures for someone, who is on the ground, in exchange for money?"
NO!!
"If, a pilot, who does not possess a commercial license, takes a friend up in a plane, can the pilot accept a bit of cash from a grateful passenger (friend) to help cover the fuel cost of the plane ride?"
Not really but there's grey area as the pilot doesn't profit in the least. The passenger isn't paying for a service. So, grey area.
"If a pilot, who does not possess a commercial license, goes up just to have fun, and ends up taking some pictures while flying, can someone ask to buy a copy of the pictures?"
If the pilot didn't go up with the intention of selling pictures they took? YES!! (but you'd probably get questioned about it if anyone knew about it. It would still be legal)

I didn't ask for any documentation related to these answers. This post isn't meant as any official doctrine. Take it as you will.

 

[wdfly]

I received a response from the FAA.

 

[wdfly]

I believe that see was meant to be sell. I’ve responded and asked for a citation of the rule.

 

[mavic3usa]

Just as I suspected, even if I don't see the original question, you likely didn't ask exactly what we really have a question about.

For sure, if you are a recreational pilot and you fly your drone and take [commercial] pictures that you are are not allowed to sell that day, nothing changes in the future, absolutely you are not allowed to sell them later.

This is evident from the answer which states "you now have a part 107" which suggests the lack of a part 107 is what stopped you from selling the footage in the past. Now that you have one, go for it. Don't have one, still can't (since the passage of time only changes nothing).

You didn't ask the correct question. I would bother bugging the FAA and asking clarifying questions we already know about. Ask the FAA where they specifically restrict what a person can sell or not.

 

[Meta4]

I received a response from the FAA.

View attachment 180300

That answer isn't correct.
This has been discussed here over the years and a whole range of answers have come from FAA individuals who don't know but make something up to fit what they feel the answer might be, much as you have done already.
There is nothing in the regulations to support that officer's interpretation.
The reasoning has been spelled out several times in this thread ... the FAA regulations are about flight, but what you might do with images in the future if you are lucky enough to have something of value to someone isn't covered by any FAA regulations.
The FAA is concerned with flight safety, not who can sell images.

It's unfortunate they have persisted with the rather silly system of judging whether your flight was non-recreational or not by your thought process at the time of the flight.
This is beyond silly as no-one can tell what you were thinking when you launched and it reduces the issue to whether you have a pure recreational state of mind at the time.

Other more progressive countries have moved on and don't care whether you sell images or not for common recreational drones (under 2 kg).
This makes perfect sense.
You can fly and capture imagery legally.
Whether you sell that imagery or not has no bearing at all on flight safety.

 

[wdfly]

Just as I suspected, even if I don't see the original question, you likely didn't ask exactly what we really have a question about.

For sure, if you are a recreational pilot and you fly your drone and take [commercial] pictures that you are are not allowed to sell that day, nothing changes in the future, absolutely you are not allowed to sell them later.

This is evident from the answer which states "you now have a part 107" which suggests the lack of a part 107 is what stopped you from selling the footage in the past. Now that you have one, go for it. Don't have one, still can't (since the passage of time only changes nothing).

You didn't ask the correct question. I would bother bugging the FAA and asking clarifying questions we already know about. Ask the FAA where they specifically restrict what a person can sell or not.

Here is the question I asked.


If someone does not have, or did not have at the time, a part 107 certificate for a flight, can they sell the video or images from that flight for profit or otherwise use them for commercial purposes? I am simply seeking clarification.

 

[wdfly]

It seems to me the way I asked the question provided the answer I suspected. No 107 no for profit use of images or footage.

 

[mavic3usa]

Here is the question I asked.


If someone does not have, or did not have at the time, a part 107 certificate for a flight, can they sell the video or images from that flight for profit or otherwise use them for commercial purposes? I am simply seeking clarification.

It seems to me the way I asked the question provided the answer I suspected. No 107 no for profit use of images or footage.

Everything that follows is strictly my opinion: The answer to that question is clearly no. And even more, doesn't matter if you make a profit or you incur a loss....no part 107 then no commercial use of your drone. Where you confuse the FAA is when you equate "profit = commercial purposes" so obviously they will answer the same for both....in the spirit of your question. Plus, they may or may not get into taking it one step further by informing you that it doesn't matter if you profit or not. The FAA doesn't regulate only drone flights for profitable commercial businesses, they also regulate drone flights for the losing businesses as well.

So you just had to throw the word "flight" into your question which again, mucks it up because that's what the FAA regulates and focuses on so obviously the context of your question is related to the drone flight...plus the subsequent output together. Clearly you cannot fly your drone for commercial purposes without a part 107 on Tuesday and then expect to be able to sell the images on Thursday without a part 107. I thought we were asking if someone ran across recreational photos and videos, can those be sold?

Here's what I would have asked: "If you legally fly under the recreational exception with the intent to fly for fun and you capture images and/or videos meant for enjoyment and not promoting a business but one day these end up being used by someone else or by the pilot for non-commercial use, does the FAA prohibit those images and/or video from being sold?"

Ultimately I think it would take a legal setting to make a final determination as I would never willingly accept a "$50,000 fine and/or jail time" for exercising my free speech rights. A photographer with his personal DSLR can sell the images he owns to anyone who would buy them just like I as a pilot with his personal drone can sell the images I own to anyone who would buy them. Perhaps the pilot would be liable for flying a drone without a part 107 but I think that would be easy to disprove (i.e. the further along in the past, the non-commercial content, intent, limiting/one-time sale, etc). And just for the record, it's not the same; flying the drone without a part 107 is not exactly the same as selling the drone photos without a part 107.

Just so you know, I'm not saying you can capture a bunch of drone content (without a part 107) and then wait out the clock and then one day, open a drone photo business selling hours of footage you captured 5 years ago without a part 107. That would suggest your intent 5 years ago was commercial in nature. I think the FAA replied early that if you got your part 107 then you would be able to sell all of those photos from 5 years ago even though they were captured under the recreational exception. In my opinion, this is true because a part 107 allows you to dispose of any type of photo whether they are commercial or recreational. It doesn't mean the recreational photos are converted to commercial photos and thus become "eligible." Once a recreational photo, always a recreational photo. FAA doesn't have any "control" over recreational content.

Anyway, let us know how the FAA responds (still interested).

 

[Bad Santa]

Here is the question I asked.


If someone does not have, or did not have at the time, a part 107 certificate for a flight, can they sell the video or images from that flight for profit or otherwise use them for commercial purposes? I am simply seeking clarification.

That's the question you asked.

Here's the question you should have asked.

"If someone does not have, or did not have at the time, a part 107 certificate for a flight, and they were flying recreationally, with no intent to sell any of the video from said flight, if someone were to desire a copy of the flight, could the owner of the footage give away a copy or require consideration for a copy, with the understanding that the original flight was for no other reason than recreation without intent to sell? Otherwise, is the video of the recreational flight forever deemed non sellable?
I will be giving a copy of this answer, along with identifying you, personally, as the guarantor of the accuracy of this information."

 

[wdfly]

That's the question you asked.

Here's the question you should have asked.

"If someone does not have, or did not have at the time, a part 107 certificate for a flight, and they were flying recreationally, with no intent to sell any of the video from said flight, if someone were to desire a copy of the flight, could the owner of the footage give away a copy or require consideration for a copy, with the understanding that the original flight was for no other reason than recreation without intent to sell? Otherwise, is the video of the recreational flight forever deemed non sellable?
I will be giving a copy of this answer, along with identifying you, personally, as the guarantor of the accuracy of this information."

I imagine that giving it away would be fine as it would be recreational use of the video. Just cannot sell or monetize from it it seems.

 

[Bad Santa]

I imagine that giving it away would be fine as it would be recreational use of the video. Just cannot sell or monetize from it it seems.

Maybe, but if the end user acquires profit from the video then you're back at square one.
I am postulating that nobody would want to give an answer knowing that it's going to be "on the record".

 

[CadrePilot]

I'm somewhat surprised by the FAA response, as they've previously stated the complete opposite. Recreational flight, determined at the time of flight, it's okay to publish and/or profit later as circumstances change.

 

[Meta4]

I imagine that giving it away would be fine as it would be recreational use of the video. Just cannot sell or monetize from it it seems.

No ... if you want to follow the letter of the law, the law says nothing about giving away or selling.
It says nothing about commercial.
It only refers to recreational and everything else is non-recreational.
Non-recreational requires Part 107.
It's not about making money (although that could be one aspect of non-recreational flying.
If you volunteer to fly search and rescue or similar, that's non-recreational and requires Part 107.

 

[wdfly]

I'm somewhat surprised by the FAA response, as they've previously stated the complete opposite. Recreational flight, determined at the time of flight, it's okay to publish and/or profit later as circumstances change.

Their response was as I expected, I have always been told that part 107 was about enabling commercial activities with a drone, including selling images/video from the flight. If one could simply go fly and later sell the footage, why would one ever need to get 107 in the first place beyond being able to apply for waivers of certain restrictions etc. and any other benefits that 107 affords the pilot if they simply always declare every flight as recreational and simply decide after the fact to sell that footage or use it in some other way to make money.

 

[MavicAir2Marc]

As mentioned before, it has everything to do with the intent of the flight when it happened and nothing to do with any footage associated with the flight that determines whether it is recreational or fall under part 107.