What to charge for a license

[mavic3usa]

Is this pilot allowed to do this without having a 107 certificate/certification?

Sorry I'm not here to nitpick and while I think you fully understand the scenario, the only way the FAA can honestly answer that question is "A drone pilot is required to have a part 107 license to engage in the [commercial] business of capturing photos and videos and selling them (because when you do this, you don't qualify for the recreational exemption)."

Sometimes I personally believe the FAA intentionally answers questions with non-specific answers (i.e. they don't address corner cases) and they try to generalize because they truly believe if they don't intend to enforce it (other than education or egregious) then it isn't necessary to get into the details. the best answer would be go fly your drone, take your pictures, and do whatever you want with them; just please get your part 107 to be on the safe side, ok?

 

[Bad Santa]

We can totally put this to bed by saying an FAA agent can't possibly give any answer that's more accurate than the answer a federal judge could.
The best the FAA could do is to offer a citation. Ultimately, a judge would decide.

 

[wdfly]

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.

You are wrong about this too.

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

Thank you, I do not consider your opinion important as I do not know who you are nor do I know anything about the credibility you proclaim to have.

 

[wdfly]

We can totally put this to bed by saying an FAA agent can't possibly give any answer that's more accurate than the answer a federal judge could.
The best the FAA could do is to offer a citation. Ultimately, a judge would decide.

I’m sorry but I cannot agree with this entirely. If the FAA guy says no then I will accept that at the answer. Yes you are right that a judge would decide but there would be a representative there from the FAA who would say it’s this or that and that is almost certainly what the judge would use to decide.

Not everyone at the FAA are ignorant and simply assuming they are and dismissing their statements as false is nonsensical at best.

 

[Bad Santa]

I’m sorry but I cannot agree with this entirely. If the FAA guy says no then I will accept that at the answer. Yes you are right that a judge would decide but there would be a representative there from the FAA who would say it’s this or that and that is almost certainly what the judge would use to decide.

Not everyone at the FAA are ignorant and simply assuming they are and dismissing their statements as false is nonsensical at best.

Sure, I mean it's not like I have more experience in a courtroom than you do. And it's not like I understand burden of proof or anything. Or that the FAA isn't going to send someone to the courthouse for a trial, knowing that the FAA has no skin in the game.

I mean, sure.

 

[wdfly]

Sure, I mean it's not like I have more experience in a courtroom than you do. And it's not like I understand burden of proof or anything. Or that the FAA isn't going to send someone to the courthouse for a trial, knowing that the FAA has no skin in the game.

I mean, sure.

You may very well do since I am not a layer, judge, nor did I stay in a holiday inn express last night. I would image the FAA action would be more of a fine and revocation of license than anything. If you make it to a courtroom, you’ve done something I would imagine.

 

[Bad Santa]

You may very well do since I am not a layer, judge, nor did I stay in a holiday inn express last night. I would image the FAA action would be more of a fine and revocation of license than anything. If you make it to a courtroom, you’ve done something I would imagine.

Or you're fighting it. And to lose, the FAA has to show up in court.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone beat a traffic ticket by asking for a trial and the cop not showing up.

 

[Cafguy]

Or it may be your misinterpretation of the rules, and you cannot monetize non-commercial drone flights.

You can! if at the time you took the photos you were a recreational pilot and the INTENT of your flight was just to take the photos for personal use. If you decide to publish that picture later you are FINE.
If you were a recreational pilot and you took said photo with the INTENT to publish it on a monitized site or sell the photo THEN you must posses a part 107 Cert. ITS ALL ABOUT INTENT!
I once thought that you could not monitize your old photos too. BUT the FAA and Pilot institute cleared it up for me.

 

[wdfly]

You can! if at the time you took the photos you were a recreational pilot and the INTENT of your flight was just to take the photos for personal use. If you decide to publish that picture later you are FINE.
If you were a recreational pilot and you took said photo with the INTENT to publish it on a monitized site or sell the photo THEN you must posses a part 107 Cert. ITS ALL ABOUT INTENT!
I once thought that you could not monitize your old photos too. BUT the FAA and Pilot institute cleared it up for me.

I'm in the process of getting clarification from the FAA and so far they have said the opposite. Recreational means personal enjoyment only and you are not allowed to sell footage because of that. I have sent a follow-up email with a more clarified question, including a scenario, but I fully expect them to respond that since it would have been a recreational flight only, the operator is not allowed to monetize any part of the flight, even after the fact. I do not expect a reply until Tuesday or so.

I would like to know who at the FAA told you it is ok to sell footage from a recreational flight and where on pilot institute did you see that it is ok, I have been looking at some of their videos about flying under C2 classification for OOP as I will be doing that in the spring, and the video I just watched said that you could use video/pictures for your own enjoyment, but to sell them requires part 107. Please link to an article/video where they say otherwise, I would like to see it.

Edit: ultimately, it does not matter to me because I have my cert; my only intent in all of this is to help people avoid getting into trouble.

Edit #2: You said it is ok to publish, and as long as you are not publishing it to a monetized platform, yes you can "publish" it such as instagram etc. You are also correct in saying that intent is key, at the time of flight, your intent is only recreational which means that you can never use any part of the flight for any monetary gain as part 107 is required for anything other than personal enjoyment, such as selling footage, inspection, etc. Now if you have 107, you never need to fly anything strictly for recreation and can do whatever you please with any of it. This is my interpretation based off of the initial feedback from the FAA, which I've posted in a previous post in this thread. Once I receive my follow-up reply, I will post that here as well. I honestly hope they say that it is ok as I really want that to be the answer, but I have my doubts as I've never seen, read, or heard anyone say it is ok except here on this forum.

 

[mavic3usa]

Edit: ultimately, it does not matter to me because I have my cert; my only intent in all of this is to help people avoid getting into trouble.

Just for the record, I agree the best advice you can provide to help people avoid getting into trouble is to get your part 107 before you engage in any commercial activity with your drone. If you plan to ever fly for more than just fun, get your part 107 and don't have to worry. This is probably the best advice (for several reasons) regardless which way the FAA answers.

As a recreational pilot, I have thousands of hours of video from many years and I had no commercial intent when I flew and I have no commercial intent today (for the older footage). I took a lot of video of the city park before re-construction so I'm sure there are people somewhere that would "appreciate" the way the park use to look. Not sure what form the "appreciation" might come in and I don't actively seek out anyone but if someone were to reach out to me, I wouldn't hesitate to share it with them. The FAA would probably be the last person on my mind at that point. That's really sad that an American would have to think about the FAA or the IRS or maybe even the FBI before they do something so harmless and petty. No wonder some (not everybody) have their doubts about the drone hobby.

 

[wdfly]

Here is something I found interesting. The guy in the video have received $182,000ish dollars in fines from the FAA. granted many of these fines are for dangerous and illegal flights, however, at about 1:35 seconds he mentions that according to the FAA, his posting videos to his monetized youtube channel requires Part 107. One can argue that intent played a part in this and that he intended to monetize it, however, the posting of the video to a monetized stream is part of why they are fining him, if one could simply say "I only intended to fly recreationally and later decided to post it to my monetized platform, that it would be ok to do so and the FAA could have backed off of the fine but they apparently did not. Link to video is below. I know nothing of this guy and had never saw him before but he is dealing with this issue, among many other very egregious violations that probably make up the bulk of his fines.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This is the only reason I am looking into this myself, I do not want anyone to make the mistakes he's made as it will reflect poorly on the rest of us and could lead to more restrictions to our hobby, and for some business, such as the silliness of the DJI law that is still floating around congress at the moment.

 

[wdfly]

Just for the record, I agree the best advice you can provide to help people avoid getting into trouble is to get your part 107 before you engage in any commercial activity with your drone. If you plan to ever fly for more than just fun, get your part 107 and don't have to worry. This is probably the best advice (for several reasons) regardless which way the FAA answers.

As a recreational pilot, I have thousands of hours of video from many years and I had no commercial intent when I flew and I have no commercial intent today (for the older footage). I took a lot of video of the city park before re-construction so I'm sure there are people somewhere that would "appreciate" the way the park use to look. Not sure what form the "appreciation" might come in and I don't actively seek out anyone but if someone were to reach out to me, I wouldn't hesitate to share it with them. The FAA would probably be the last person on my mind at that point. That's really sad that an American would have to think about the FAA or the IRS or maybe even the FBI before they do something so harmless and petty. No wonder some (not everybody) have their doubts about the drone hobby.

I agree, I really dislike many of the laws that we have in place as it tramples all over our liberties. Honestly, I would love to see part 107 only be about flying in places that would otherwise be restricted because of the need to additional safety/knowledge/skill etc. and have nothing to do about monetizing video/images. I hope the FAA comes back and says, "yeah it's ok" but have my doubts they will.

 

[Cafguy]

Recreational means personal enjoyment only and you are not allowed to sell footage because of that.

Correct that is is why you cannot make the purpose or INTENT of any of your flights commercial so your INTENT must only be for recreation. However if you take footage during your recreational flight you are free to publish that even if it is on a monitized site. People send in FPV videos to get shown and reviewed live online, it does not mean they need a part 107 to do so.
Once again Its all about the intent of your flight.

 

[Cafguy]

your intent is only recreational which means that you can never use any part of the flight for any monetary gain

Two recreational pilots are approached by the pastor of the local church and asked to donate aerial photos of the church to sell for a fundraiser.
Our first Drone pilot remembers a few months back when he took photos with his drone, some of his family during a picnic on church grounds, with a great view of the church. He finds a nice one and submits it to the pastor.

Our second pilot takes his drone out the day after the pastor asks, to grab a great shot to get the best donation, He gets what is desired and gives that to the pastor.
Only one of the two pilots above is in violation of the rules.

 

[wdfly]

Correct that is is why you cannot make the purpose or INTENT of any of your flights commercial so your INTENT must only be for recreation. However if you take footage during your recreational flight you are free to publish that even if it is on a monitized site. People send in FPV videos to get shown and reviewed live online, it does not mean they need a part 107 to do so.
Once again Its all about the intent of your flight.

According to what the loon in the video said, the FAA says you have to have 107 to post to a monetized source (or make money from it), presumably regardless of what the intent of the flight is. I would think that if intent of the flight was all one needed to comply with, they would (or could have decided to) not have fined him.

Now, it is easy to say he intended to do this, however, if he could have said "I only ever intended to fly for fun and later decided to post the videos" he could have gotten out of that portion of the fines, yet he did not do that. This latter portion is what makes me believe this is simply untrue, and it would make sense that it is not true given 107 is for commercial use, among other things.

Edit: I believe the FAA uses whether or not one makes money off of a flight to solely determine commercial intent, not what the pilot simply says or decides at the time of flight, this would make more sense to me regarding this.

 

[CadrePilot]

Two recreational pilots are approached by the pastor of the local church and asked to donate aerial photos of the church to sell for a fundraiser.
Our first Drone pilot remembers a few months back when he took a photo with his drone, of his family during a picnic on church grounds with a great view of the church. He finds a nice one and submits it to the pastor.
Our second pilot takes his drone out the day after the pastor asks, to grab a great shot to give to the pastor, He gets what is desired and gives that to the pastor.
Only one of the two pilots above is in violation of the rules.

Good illustration of the difference.

 

[wdfly]

Again, I want all of you to be correct, but will wait to hear what the FAA says in my reply, it should be a definitive answer.

 

[mavic3usa]

According to what the loon in the video said, the FAA says you have to have 107 to post to a monetized source (or make money from it), presumably regardless of what the intent of the flight is. I would think that if intent of the flight was all one needed to comply with, they would (or could have decided to) not have fined him.

Now, it is easy to say he intended to do this, however, if he could have said "I only ever intended to fly for fun and later decided to post the videos" he could have gotten out of that portion of the fines, yet he did not do that. This latter portion is what makes me believe this is simply untrue, and it would make sense that it is not true given 107 is for commercial use, among other things.

Edit: I believe the FAA uses whether or not one makes money off of a flight to solely determine commercial intent, not what the pilot simply says or decides at the time of flight, this would make more sense to me regarding this.

Once you violate the drone rules and regulations (such as flying recklessly), you need a part 107 to legally fly your drone....for *anything* and *everything*.

That's the entire basis of these fines (which I understand have still not yet been paid).

 

[Cafguy]

I used to think the rule was exactly as you are stating. Even some of my post remarks from long ago reflect this past belief. I have learned from members here and other sources that its not exactly true.

 

[wdfly]

Good illustration of the difference.

From the FAA website:

• Note: Non-recreational drone flying include things like taking photos to help sell a property or service, roof inspections, or taking pictures of a high school football game for the school's website. Goodwill can also be considered non-recreational. This would include things like volunteering to use your drone to survey coastlines on behalf of a non-profit organization.

I believe both were in violation, again, I want you all to be right but will wait to hear from the FAA as I believe both were in violation as "good will" can be deemed non-recreational.