Where do you draw the line from recreational pilot to part 107?

[Vic Moss]

So then, with all of that in mind, this would be legal?

I ask for and receive permission from the park to operate my drone within the park and take a picture for my own enjoyment from within the park. They ask what I'll be doing with the content, and I tell them I'll be posting it on Instagram. I go up 100 feet, take a picture within the park, and post it on Instagram. The park sees the photo on Instagram, they copy it and eventually post the picture on their website.

So long as there's no explicit exchange of value, I'm good? If it's implicit, as in the above, then I should be okay?

It would cross into the realm of 107 if the park required you go give them access to the imagery in order to gain permission to fly.

If they steal it after the fact (yes, it would be stealing if the use it without permission), then it's not a 107 flight if you flew for enjoyment.

Whatever you do, watermark your image.

 

[Dangerly]

It would cross into the realm of 107 if the park required you go give them access to the imagery in order to gain permission to fly.

If they steal it after the fact (yes, it would be stealing if the use it without permission), then it's not a 107 flight if you flew for enjoyment.

Whatever you do, watermark your image.

Okay, so what if I open source all my drone work - free to the world to do with what they like, and they don't need to give me credit. Then no one needs permission and it wouldn't be stealing. Does that change anything?

 

[Vic Moss]

Okay, so what if I open source all my drone work - free to the world to do with what they like, and they don't need to give me credit. Then no one needs permission and it wouldn't be stealing. Does that change anything?

If that's what you consider recreational to you, then you don't need a 107. But you're selling yourself short if you don't watermark your imagery. No one should put anything on social media w/o a watermark.

What happens after the fact to your imagery doesn't matter to the FAA. But it should to you.

 

[msinger]

If the park gives permission with the caveat that they get a copy of the photo, the flight is no longer recreational. The park has put a quid pro quo caveat on the flight. It now falls under 107 rules.

And you're now injecting your personal opinion, correct? I don't see this kind of detail anywhere in the link you shared. If it's in there somewhere, can you share those details here in this thread?

FWIW, I think the FAA makes rules vague on purpose so they can use them in their favor at will.

 

[Dangerly]

If that's what you consider recreational to you, then you don't need a 107. But you're selling yourself short if you don't watermark your imagery. No one should put anything on social media w/o a watermark.

What happens after the fact to your imagery doesn't matter to the FAA. But it should to you.

What is recreational? It's flying for the pure fun of it, taking photos and video because I want to capture beauty. How would a watermark help me achieve that?

 

[msinger]

How would a watermark help me achieve that?

You'd of course only need to add a watermark if you're concerned that someone else will claim your work as their own. If that doesn't matter to you, then adding a watermark would most certainly be wasted effort on your part.

 

[Deleted member 170519]

So then, with all of that in mind, this would be legal?

I ask for and receive permission from the park to operate my drone within the park and take a picture for my own enjoyment from within the park. They ask what I'll be doing with the content, and I tell them I'll be posting it on Instagram. I go up 100 feet, take a picture within the park, and post it on Instagram. The park sees the photo on Instagram, they copy it and eventually post the picture on their website.

So long as there's no explicit exchange of value, I'm good? If it's implicit, as in the above, then I should be okay?

There is one thing wrong with that scenario. Copyright. If they take your photo without explicit permission, they have violated the law.

 

[Dangerly]

There is one thing wrong with that scenario. Copyright. If they take your photo without explicit permission, they have violated the law.

I think you missed the part later down in this thread where I addressed that. I intend to open source all my drone photos and videos, allowing anyone in the world to copy them with no restrictions, not even giving me credit. Then it would not be a copyright violation.

 

[Vic Moss]

And you're now injecting your personal opinion, correct?

Nope. The FAA is quite clear that once there is any benefit to any party at the time of the flight, it cannot be taken under 44809. The first part of 44809 is "flown strictly for recreational purposes". Once the park requires a copy of the imagery for their use, it is no longer strictly recreation. And since it isn't, it defaults to 107 rules.

I don't see this kind of detail anywhere in the link you shared. If it's in there somewhere, can you share those details here in this thread?

"(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes." See above.

FWIW, I think the FAA makes rules vague on purpose so they can use them in their favor at will.

There are certainly some vagueness in some of the rules, but it plays both ways. If we can justify pushing the rules a bit (BVLOS being the main one), it's to our benefit. On the other hand, the FAA can use their interpretation slightly differently in their favor.

Also, when there is a hard line in the sand, it's actually easier to find a way around it.

 

[msinger]

Nope. The FAA is quite clear that once there is any benefit to any party at the time of the flight, it cannot be taken under 44809. The first part of 44809 is "flown strictly for recreational purposes". Once the park requires a copy of the imagery for their use, it is no longer strictly recreation. And since it isn't, it defaults to 107 rules.

IMO, when you say things like "The FAA is quite clear that once there is any benefit to any party at the time of the flight, it cannot be taken under 44809", that is a lot clearer than a vague statement like "flown strictly for recreational purposes" (what the FAA actually said in the link you shared). I understand it doesn't seem vague to you, but it must vague to many people since so many people continue to ask for the FAA's definition of a recreational flight in this forum (and elsewhere).

As someone who sits on an FAA committee, you'd be doing pilots a great service by notifying the FAA that many don't understand the definition of a "recreational" flight.

 

[Vic Moss]

IMO, when you say things like "The FAA is quite clear that once there is any benefit to any party at the time of the flight, it cannot be taken under 44809", that is a lot clearer than a vague statement like "flown strictly for recreational purposes". I understand it doesn't seem vague to you, but it must vague to many people since so many people continue to ask for the FAA's definition of a recreational flight in this (and other) forums.

This is what I do with the FAA. I know the rules, and I counsel drone owners who are turned into the CO/WY FSDO.

Once there is any benefit to any party of the flight (during or before the flight), it is no longer "recreational". Once the flight is taken, the recreational pilot can sell the imagery if someone asks about it later.

But if you are flying with the intent (or requirement) of benefit to the park, it's 107.

Please reach out to the guys are [email protected]. And do tell them I sent you. They will tell you the same thing. I promise.

 

[msinger]

Please reach out to the guys are [email protected]. And do tell them I sent you.

I've reached out to that email in the past on various issues (some years ago) and did not receive helpful information. Just a barrage of vague advice. So, it's going to be a hard pass.

My suggestion above stands though. The FAA needs to do a better job of publicly communicating the rules in a way that makes sense to everyday people (like you're describing in your own words here).

 

[Dangerly]

The FAA is quite clear that once there is any benefit to any party at the time of the flight

This is what I do with the FAA. I know the rules, and I counsel drone owners who are turned into the CO/WY FSDO.

Once there is any benefit to any party of the flight (during or before the flight), it is no longer "recreational". Once the flight is taken, the recreational pilot can sell the imagery if someone asks about it later.

But if you are flying with the intent (or requirement) of benefit to the park, it's 107.

Please reach out to the guys are [email protected]. And do tell them I sent you. They will tell you the same thing. I promise.

I assume that this excludes the benefit of the joy I experience of flying recreationally. If I open source all my drone work as a matter of habit, I should still be allowed to post my work as a recreational pilot. With this setup I would be intentionally unaware of whether or not anyone benefits from my work after the fact and fully license anyone to copy it without giving me credit, but the point is that the benefit to another party would not accrue at the time of the flight (to my knowledge or intention) and would not be a condition of my flying. However, other parties would know that I post all my work as open source.

Would this be allowed under recreational use?

 

[Vic Moss]

I've reached out to that email in the past on various issues (some years ago) and did not receive helpful information. Just a barrage of vague advice. So, it's going to be a hard pass.

My suggestion above stands though. The FAA needs to do a better job of publicly communicating the rules in a way that makes sense to everyday people (like you're describing in your own words here).

If you want an official FAA answer, that’s where you’ll get it. I’ll admit they were a bit overwhelmed at first. But the gents there now know their stuff. If they don’t they know where to get it.

And on an occasion or two, they reach out to me.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

D & E seem like you've crossed the line of flying recreational (just for fun). You're now plotting ahead of time to do something commercially with the photos taken during the flight.

Yes A is obviously ok.
B&C the park obviously hasn't done the right thing and abused your copyright, but still your intent at time of the flight was for pure recreational purpose.
As mentioned, D&E are over the line for intent.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

As far as the copyright argument, even without watermark you are still the owner of the image, just harder to prove and take action I guess than if you did have it watermarked, or even a little tiny name / reference date etc in a lower corner.

 

[spsphotos]

I feel like this whole distinction between recreational and part 107 is pure mud and I can't make heads or tails of it for my particular use case. I never want to get compensated in any way - whether financially, good will, or otherwise - from any of my drone work. In fact, I don't even want my name on any of my drone work or to get credit. It's purely for the fun of it and capturing beauty. If other people see it, great, but I honestly don't care.

So with that setup, pick a letter and tell me where you'd draw the line between recreational and Part 107. Do I need a Part 107?

A. I own property in clear airspace with no local restrictions, I launch my drone from my own back yard, go up to 100 feet, take a picture of a park in the distance, and return. I post the picture on my personal Instagram account. So far, this would all be fine under recreational use, right? I can't imagine any problems.

B. The park sees my picture, downloads it from Instagram, and posts it on their website. So far, no problem for me, right?

C. I ask for and receive permission from the park to operate my drone within the park and take a picture for my own enjoyment from within the park. I do the same thing - go up 100 feet, take a very similar picture but this time within the park, and post it on Instagram. The park does the same thing - they copy it and eventually post the picture on their website.

D. Very similar to above, but with one difference. I ask for and receive permission from the park to operate my drone and take a picture from within the park, so long as I give them permission to use the picture to do with what they want. I do the same thing - go up 100 feet, take a very similar picture but this time within the park, and post it on Instagram. They do the same thing - copy the picture from Instagram and post on on their website.

E. Very similar to above, but with one difference. I ask for and receive permission from the park to operate my drone and take a picture from within the park, so long as I give them a copy of the picture to do with what they want. I do the same thing - go up 100 feet, take a very similar picture but this time within the park, and post it on Instagram. I email them a copy of the picture, and they post it on their website.

At what letter do I violate FAA guidelines with a recreational license?

EDIT: For those starting here, I've since added the twist that I would intend to open source all my drone photos and videos, allowing anyone in the world to copy them without giving me credit. I assume I don't need a part 107 just for that. If others want to use my work, I would neither know nor care. This way, I don't need to explicitly give permission (in part D) to use my work because it's inherent in the open source copyright.

It's all about intent. So...

A) Part 107. But only if your intent when you made the flight was to post images on your Instagram account. If 3 weeks later you go "Hey, that's not a bad shot, I think I'll post it"....recreational.

B) No problem there, see A.

C) See A and B.

D) Part 107, flight, and images are for the benefit of the park.

E) Same as D if you intended to do that at the time of the flight.

The intent is the key to all of it. Though in all your scenarios, doubt the FAA would even pay attention unless you were doing it a lot. If, for example, you run a YouTube channel or an Instagram all drone related then they might take notice or someone (gasp) might rat you out. It seems muddy, but it's not really.

Any flight where you intend to benefit yourself or someone else is Part 107. Benefit, that's the grey area, but it does not have to be monetary. A good example, using the drone to check out your roof to see if it is in need of repair...part 107, because there is a benefit to you in that you don't have to hire someone to go up and look at it.

 

[Anthony Ivory]

If you have this much time to go back and forth on the subject just get the 107 ! The fines for being wrong will cost 100 times the price of the exam.
By the way there is enough evidence in your messages here to convict you .
If you go to YouTube there are several great FREE 107 courses. Takes about 8 hours. Why limit yourself to just recreational when you can do so much more. Sounds like you are a good pilot if someone wants to use your photos MAN JUST GET PAID
I’ve been in aviation for 45 years there are no good short cuts.

 

[Anthony Ivory]

As far as the copyright argument, even without watermark you are still the owner of the image, just harder to prove and take action I guess than if you did have it watermarked, or even a little tiny name / reference date etc in a lower corner.

Every photo has a metadata file.

 

[Vic Moss]

Every photo has a metadata file.

However, when you post it to social media, they scrub the metadata at upload. So it's useless for any © violation issues that crop up.