What to charge for a license

[wdfly]

I went back and checked my email, since I was travelling the follow-up email never sent. So I have the opportunity to post the follow-up I originally intended to send out. The follow-up is as follows, look it over and see if you believe I need to modify it in any way.

"begin example scenario:

A recreational pilot who does not possess a Part 107 certification and who flies only for recreational purposes takes their drone out and photographs a waterfall that is not easily accessible by foot. They return home and show the footage to their friend, who loves the content and wants to use it on their business website for marketing/monetary purposes. They pay the pilot money for a copy and the use of their footage. Is this pilot allowed to do this without having a 107 certificate/certification?

End Scenario:

Ultimately, what the group is saying is the purpose of the flight, at the time of the flight, is the only part governed by part 107, and any images/footage captured during the flight are merely the property of the person flying and can later be used in any way they wish, either recreationally (personal enjoyment) or commercially by selling it, using it on their for-profit website, monetized stock photos, etc. To boil the question down to a single sentence, does the selling or otherwise use for monetary purposes of the footage from the flight retroactively change the intent of the flight from recreational to commercial, and would the pilot in the above fictional scenario be able to do this without possessing a Part 107 certificate?"

I believe with this clarification follow-up, we should get a definitive answer, even though I am personally content in saying the previous answer tells me what I need to know.

 

[MavicAir2Marc]

A recreational pilot who does not possess a Part 107 certification and who flies only for recreational purposes takes their drone out and photographs a waterfall that is not easily accessible by foot. They return home and show the footage to their friend, who loves the content and wants to use it on their business website for marketing/monetary purposes. They pay the pilot money for a copy and the use of their footage. Is this pilot allowed to do this without having a 107 certificate/certification?

This is correct, as long as your intent was not to go out and shoot the video for your friend in the first place. If someone sees it later and wants to buy it, that is allowed. If you went out and purposely shot footage (or even just fly as in looking for someone's lost puppy) for someone (whether they give you money or not) or footage you intend to sell later, that requires a Part 107 license.

 

[CadrePilot]

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.

And that echoes what we've been told by the FAA many times. Hence my surprise with the reply another poster quoted from FAA.

 

[wdfly]

This is correct, as long as your intent was not to go out and shoot the video for your friend in the first place. If someone sees it later and wants to buy it, that is allowed. If you went out and purposely shot footage (or even just fly as in looking for someone's lost puppy) for someone (whether they give you money or not) or footage you intend to sell later, that requires a Part 107 license.

I want to believe you, and I want it to be true. However, this is the opposite of everything I have ever been told regarding this. I have only ever been told/read that any money made from any drone flight requires the RPIC to have 107 before any money can be made both at the time of flight or after by selling images etc.

 

[CadrePilot]

I want to believe you, and I want it to be true. However, this is the opposite of everything I have ever been told regarding this. I have only ever been told/read that any money made from any drone flight requires the RPIC to have 107 before any money can be made both at the time of flight or after by selling images etc.

For a few years (several, perhaps?) the standard has been recreational or everything else. This has left many folks getting advice that predates that change that uses "commercial" as a determining factor. The current guidelines, as written, only involve the recreational exception to Part 107, with everything else being Part 107.

However, the FAA reply quoted earlier in this thread is unfortunate and flies in the face of everything we've been told for the last few years.

 

[Meta4]

However, this is the opposite of everything I have ever been told regarding this. I have only ever been told/read that any money made from any drone flight requires the RPIC to have 107 before any money can be made both at the time of flight or after by selling images etc.

Simple .. a lot of what you've been told (and posted again and again here) is simplistic and incorrect.

 

[mavic3usa]

I went back and checked my email, since I was travelling the follow-up email never sent. So I have the opportunity to post the follow-up I originally intended to send out. The follow-up is as follows, look it over and see if you believe I need to modify it in any way.

"begin example scenario:

A recreational pilot who does not possess a Part 107 certification and who flies only for recreational purposes takes their drone out and photographs a waterfall that is not easily accessible by foot. They return home and show the footage to their friend, who loves the content and wants to use it on their business website for marketing/monetary purposes. They pay the pilot money for a copy and the use of their footage. Is this pilot allowed to do this without having a 107 certificate/certification?

End Scenario:

Ultimately, what the group is saying is the purpose of the flight, at the time of the flight, is the only part governed by part 107, and any images/footage captured during the flight are merely the property of the person flying and can later be used in any way they wish, either recreationally (personal enjoyment) or commercially by selling it, using it on their for-profit website, monetized stock photos, etc. To boil the question down to a single sentence, does the selling or otherwise use for monetary purposes of the footage from the flight retroactively change the intent of the flight from recreational to commercial, and would the pilot in the above fictional scenario be able to do this without possessing a Part 107 certificate?"

I believe with this clarification follow-up, we should get a definitive answer, even though I am personally content in saying the previous answer tells me what I need to know.

Even with this example, I can see where the FAA would comment otherwise because it doesn't appear to be a bright line between capturing the footage and selling it. Your example leaves open the possibility that the recreational flyer was using his drone to capture the waterfall only to make it available later for possible commercial use. The pilot could easily claim he never intended to do this when he took off but how would anyone know that? Typically it's the government that has to "prove" your intent and they would never have a case if the photo went unsold; however, if you sell that photo in this manner then you diminish your intent.

Let's say you don't intend to sell the waterfall image and your ex- discovers your photo and then send you a Venmo for $5 (that you cannot refuse) and in the notes "Thanks for selling me the waterfall image!" with the FAA on cc: Are you "screwed?" Did your ex- just send you to jail?

 

[wdfly]

Well, so far I have a statement from the FAA that doesn’t support your position. I will be sending the email posted above later today. I feel confident they are going to tell me that 107 would be required.

Do you have any sources that support your position on this? I would be happy to see/read them. I really want you to be correct but it is simply not looking good for that so far.

 

[wdfly]

Even with this example, I can see where the FAA would comment otherwise because it doesn't appear to be a bright line between capturing the footage and selling it. Your example leaves open the possibility that the recreational flyer was using his drone to capture the waterfall only to make it available later for possible commercial use. The pilot could easily claim he never intended to do this when he took off but how would anyone know that? Typically it's the government that has to "prove" your intent and they would never have a case if the photo went unsold; however, if you sell that photo in this manner then you diminish your intent.

Let's say you don't intend to sell the waterfall image and your ex- discovers your photo and then send you a Venmo for $5 (that you cannot refuse) and in the notes "Thanks for selling me the waterfall image!" with the FAA on cc: Are you "screwed?" Did your ex- just send you to jail?

I can reword it a little to say they were not intending to sell the footage at the time of flight but believe it will bear little change if any on their position on the matter.

 

[Bad Santa]

Simple .. a lot of what you've been told (and posted again and again here) is simplistic and incorrect.

^^^^^^ THIS!

The fact remains that some people hear something, believe it, then refuse to alter their belief no matter how much evidence is presented otherwise.
I can't tell me how many times I've heard "Well, I don't care what they say, I don't believe it". And that comes from actually opening a book and showing the actual written laws, sometimes.
I've even heard a cop and judge argue it in court. I happened to have the law book with me that day (it wasn't even my case and only traffic laws) and offered to read the laws as they applied.
The defendant walked away with a warning but the cop actually said to the judge (directed at me) "I don't care what's in that book. I'm not buying it".

 

[mavic3usa]

I can reword it a little to say they were not intending to sell the footage at the time of flight but believe it will bear little change if any on their position on the matter.

This is why we need clarification, not with email examples and comments and opinions from the FAA, but actual changes in the working of the rules and regulations so it is clear and unambiguous and not subjective based on the target and their appearance and attitude and demeanor and other biases, etc.

 

[Bad Santa]

I just got another opinion from another aviation professional.

The jist.

You can't change the past.

If you fly recreationally today, it can't be deemed a commercial flight later.

 

[wdfly]

This is why we need clarification, not with email examples and comments and opinions from the FAA, but actual changes in the working of the rules and regulations so it is clear and unambiguous and not subjective based on the target and their appearance and attitude and demeanor and other biases, etc.

I agree there needs to be more language added to the Part 107 rules to clarify this, but for the time being all we can get is feedback from the FAA reps on this. It would be incumbent on anyone flying to adhere to the rules or not. I am going to add a little language to my example that specifically states the fictional person flying is doing so with no intent to sell the footage at the time of flight and see what they say.

 

[wdfly]

I just got another opinion from another aviation professional.

The jist.

You can't change the past.

If you fly recreationally today, it can't be deemed a commercial flight later.

That is fine to get opinions, however I would be more willing to accept what the FAA has to say about it over anyone else, since they are the governing body. Again, I hope you are all correct and I still think it is silly if we cannot sell/use the footage. IMO the 107 should just be about gaining additional privileges in areas, means, and modes of flight rather than all that and being able to make a buck.

 

[wdfly]

Here is what I am sending to the FAA rep today.

"
Begin example scenario:

A recreational pilot who does not possess a Part 107 certification and who flies only for recreational purposes takes their drone out and photographs a waterfall that is not easily accessible by foot. At the time of flight, they did/do not have any intention of selling the footage to anyone or using it for profit in any way. They return home and show the footage to their friend, who loves the content and wants to use it on their business website for marketing/monetary purposes. They pay the pilot money for a copy and the use of their footage. Is this pilot allowed to do this without having a 107 certificate/certification?

End Scenario:

Ultimately, what they are saying is the purpose of the flight, at the time of the flight, is the only part governed by part 107, and any images/footage captured during the flight are merely the property of the person flying and can later be used in any way they wish, either recreationally (personal enjoyment) or commercially by selling it, using it on their for-profit website, monetized stock photos, etc. To boil the question down to a single sentence, does the selling or otherwise use for monetary purposes of the footage from the flight retroactively change the intent of the flight from recreational to commercial?

Would the fictional pilot in the above scenario be required to have Part 107 to do what the scenario outlines?

"

 

[wdfly]

I think with this level of detail, we should get a definitive answer that should put the question to rest, at least for me.

Edit: or they say something different and it expands the ball of wax more, I could see that also, especially from the government.

 

[Bad Santa]

That is fine to get opinions, however I would be more willing to accept what the FAA has to say about it over anyone else, since they are the governing body. Again, I hope you are all correct and I still think it is silly if we cannot sell/use the footage. IMO the 107 should just be about gaining additional privileges in areas, means, and modes of flight rather than all that and being able to make a buck.

Yeah, if that 5 year CFI is incorrect, I'll let him know. Because that's what he tells his students when they ask questions about whether or not they need to upgrade their rec license to a commercial one.

 

[Meta4]

Well, so far I have a statement from the FAA that doesn’t support your position.

So far you have one opinion from one individual FAA employee and some other anecdotal opinions from uninformed individuals.
This topic has been discussed round and round for 10 years ... long before you arrived here.
And we've seen opinions from uninformed FAA personnel many times.
Just like you get very wrong technical information from DJI tech "help" people.

I feel confident they are going to tell me that 107 would be required.

Of course you do.
It's clear that you are unwilling to listen to anyone with a contrary opinion to yours.
But it's still wrong.

The whole debate is based on poorly implemented and poorly planned regulations, complicated by confused, uninformed individuals stating their incorrect opinions without bothering to check what the actual requlations are.

Do you have any sources that support your position on this? I would be happy to see/read them. I really want you to be correct but it is simply not looking good for that so far.

There are threads on this topic going back years.
I don't have a list.
But you should read some of the posts by @Vic Moss who works closely with the FAA and probably knows more about this than quite a few of their staff.
He has a bit to say about it in this thread:

https://mavicpilots.com/threads/ok-help-me-out-am-i-wrong.146408/post-1646421.

Here's something from FAA legal counsel from way back in 2015, before there was any Part 107 process and the FAA wanted you to have an actual airplane licence to fly your toy DJI drone commercially!

Incredibly lucky new Phantom owner

Some of the details in this story have deliberately been withheld to shield his identity. About 6 weeks ago I visited a relative. I brought my P3S which I flew around his house for a few minutes, but it was too windy that day to do any real flying. It was enough enough for him, though, so he...

phantompilots.com

That is fine to get opinions, however I would be more willing to accept what the FAA has to say about it over anyone else, since they are the governing body.

I pointed out in post #41, that what one person from the FAA says, isn't necessarily correct.
We've seen misinformation from individuals at the FAA who want to tell you what they imagine the rules are, rather than finding out what the actual rules are.

 

[wdfly]

So far you have one opinion from one individual FAA employee and some other anecdotal opinions from uninformed individuals.
This topic has been discussed round and round for 10 years ... long before you arrived here.
And we've seen opinions from uninformed FAA personnel many times.
Just like you get very wrong technical information from DJI tech "help" people.

Perhaps.

Of course you do.
It's clear that you are unwilling to listen to anyone with a contrary opinion to yours.
But it's still wrong.

This statement is inaccurate, I am willing to change my mind but will only do so based on comments from the governing body rather than people who are stating opinions as you've said. I've been told by cops they won't give someone a ticket for less than 10 over, however it is still illegal to go even 1 mile an hour over the speed limit. What they have told me is their opinion and does not take fact into consideration. I am more than willing to change my mind, I am just not willing to do so based on the opinions of those that do not work for the governing body over that of the governing body itself.

The whole debate is based on poorly implemented and poorly planned regulations, complicated by confused, uninformed individuals stating their incorrect opinions without bothering to check what the actual requlations are.

I agree about the regulation, it is not very well written. As for confused or uninformed representative statement, we have no way of truly knowing their level of knowledge on the topic, but if they say no, they are speaking for the governing body and if one ever gets into a situation where the FAA is executing an enforcement action and you were told what you were doing is wrong by an FAA rep, well you wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on, or you would if you were told it was OK etc.

There are threads on this topic going back years.
I don't have a list.
But you should read some of the posts by @Vic Moss who works closely with the FAA and probably knows more about this than quite a few of their staff.
He has a bit to say about it in this thread:

https://mavicpilots.com/threads/ok-help-me-out-am-i-wrong.146408/post-1646421.

I would need something more official than the statements/opinions of others in forum posts. There is a difference between someone who works with the FAA closely and the actual FAA in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I am not specifically saying this person does not know what they are talking about, I am simply saying I am going to take the word of an FAA rep over anyone else regarding an FAA regulation.

Here's something from FAA legal counsel from way back in 2015, before there was any Part 107 process and the FAA wanted you to have an actual airplane licence to fly your toy DJI drone commercially!

Incredibly lucky new Phantom owner

Some of the details in this story have deliberately been withheld to shield his identity. About 6 weeks ago I visited a relative. I brought my P3S which I flew around his house for a few minutes, but it was too windy that day to do any real flying. It was enough enough for him, though, so he...

phantompilots.com

I pointed out in post #41, that what one person from the FAA says, isn't necessarily correct.

I believe this is simply your opinion as we do not know whether they would know or not, but if they say no, then that is what I am going to accept as fact since they are speaking for the governing body.

We've seen misinformation from individuals at the FAA who want to tell you what they imagine the rules are, rather than finding out what the actual rules are.

How were you able to verify they were inaccurate in their statements?

Part of me wants to think that with 107 only being a part of the whole rules package from the FAA, there is something elsewhere in their regulations that governs recreational vs commercial and that part 107 only outlines specific aspects of drone flight. Having not read the entirety of the FAA regulations, I do not know one way or the other on this.

 

[Meta4]

I would need something more official than the statements/opinions of others in forum posts.

Of course .. you have no interest in listening to anyone with contrary information.
If someone works for the FAA (and they agree with your uninformed opinion) that's good enough for you even when you've been warned that there's a lot of misinformation among FAA staff on this topic.

There is a difference between someone who works with the FAA closely and the actual FAA in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I am not specifically saying this person does not know what they are talking about, I am simply saying I am going to take the word of an FAA rep over anyone else regarding an FAA regulation.

You are wrong about this too.

I believe this is simply your opinion as we do not know whether they would know or not, but if they say no, then that is what I am going to accept as fact since they are speaking for the governing body.

How were you able to verify they were inaccurate in their statements?

Part of me wants to think that with 107 only being a part of the whole rules package from the FAA, there is something elsewhere in their regulations that governs recreational vs commercial and that part 107 only outlines specific aspects of drone flight. Having not read the entirety of the FAA regulations, I do not know one way or the other on this.

I won't waste any more effort trying to enlighten someone so obstinate and with a completely closed mind..