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

[BillS]

D and E cross the line. You are offering “something” in return for your flight.

 

[tlyons]

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.

Not that muddy. From https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_flyers :

"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."

D and E are very similar to the part of the quote I bolded. You need a 107 license. Keep in mind "The default regulation for drones weighing under 55 pounds is Part 107." from the same source. The FAA will assume part 107 unless you prove it isn't.

Of course, in real life no one cares. Some time ago, I proposed that the answers to these questions need to refer to the rules or the regulators, in this case a specific FAA.gov web site and page. Everything else is just some internet opinion.

 

[Dmcvey]

I believe you and most are approaching this from the wrong angle. Part 107 is the default. When Part 107 was outlined, Congress told FAA that this does allow you to regulate model airplanes and club. So....you have the 44809 exemption from needing to Part 107. In that list of 8 items is #2

The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.

49 U.S. Code § 44809​

Community-based Organization Defined.—In this section, the term “community-based organization” means a membership-based association entity that—
(1)
is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(2)
is exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(3)
the mission of which is demonstrably the furtherance of model aviation;
(4)
provides a comprehensive set of safety guidelines for all aspects of model aviation addressing the assembly and operation of model aircraft and that emphasize safe aeromodelling operations within the national airspace system and the protection and safety of individuals and property on the ground, and may provide a comprehensive set of safety rules and programming for the operation of unmanned aircraft that have the advanced flight capabilities enabling active, sustained, and controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond visual line of sight of the operator;
(5)
provides programming and support for any local charter organizations, affiliates, or clubs; and
(6)
provides assistance and support in the development and operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites.

So, if you are not a member of a community-based organization (see above definition) you are flying under Part 107.

The whole am I being paid or not is not the issue....the issue is do you meet 44809 #2.

 

[Ty Pilot]

So, if you are not a member of a community-based organization (see above definition) you are flying under Part 107.

Actually, you do not have to be a member of the club (CBO) - you just need to know which CBO's guidelines you are following. Part of becoming a CBO is that membership is not required.

The only time you would need to join a CBO is if you are going to want to fly at one of their FRIA's

 

[Dmcvey]

Actually, you do not have to be a member of the club (CBO) - you just need to know which CBO's guidelines you are following. Part of becoming a CBO is that membership is not required.

The only time you would need to join a CBO is if you are going to want to fly at one of their FRIA's

From AMA webite:

AMA’s programming requires members to affirm and sign that they have read and understand the AMA Safety Code, will receive TFR/NOTAMs through AMA’s notification system, have access to modeling clubs, receive news and information through printed publications such as Model Aviation magazine, have access to education material, comply with our evolving safety program, and be provided a two-way communication to AMA Headquarters. AMA membership also fosters responsible operations through member-only benefits such as a $2.5 million insurance policy. Nonmembers are encouraged to read and follow AMA’s Safety Handbook, but because they do not have access to these resources they are not fully operating within our safety programming.

Repeat:
are not fully operating within our safety programming. 44809: The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.

If you are not a member, by their statement, you are NOT fully operating within their safety guidelines.

 

[Photobobhunt]

The easiest way to avoid most of these questions is to study and take the 107 exam. Also follow all the local rules and regulations.
I did this when I first started flying and if nothing else, the few jobs I take cover the cost of my equipment and the exam. Also having commercial certification gives you mor access and opportunity. Not to mention making you a more knowledgeable pilot.
I didn't read all the responses, so I may just be repeating others.

 

[Cymruflyer]

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?

By the simple fact that the park is stealing your or anyone's photos without getting or asking for copyright clearance, means the park is breaking the law. The park has no right whatsoever to steal any photo that they may see on a website, and then use it in anyway at all, be it their website or in a magazine etc..

The fact that they are using it on their website means that they are profiting/benefiting from using that illegally obtained photo. I believe under the law, if they are using your photos, they are obviously doing it to benefit themselves and if the producer of those photos does not have a Part 107, they may well be in line for a fine from the FAA as well.

As has been said, if the park allows you to use its land to take off and take photos, which you have stated, the park authorities are expecting to see the results somewhere, and either steal illegally, or get them with your permission, then they are allowing you special privilege. Since you have already stated, they are expecting to see and use those images for their benefit, then that is a commercial operation, there is no grey area at all.

The cat is out of the bag here and everyone now knows what is going on and if the FAA were to look into it, it might not go as you are hoping, that you were purely flying for recreational purposes. Especially if others are not permitted to fly from their land, as you are allowed to.

Of course, another thing to consider is that since you are offering your photos for free for the park to use in their advertising, you are taking possible work away from a Part 107 drone operator, that might have been hired and of course paid, to do that same thing.

Sort of like me going to your boss and saying that I can do your job and I love doing that kind of work and I would enjoy doing it so much that your employer does not have to pay me. Suddenly you are out of a job, because someone offered to do the work for free. Suddenly I no longer look like a good guy just having innocent fun to you anymore, because you can no longer provide for your family nor keep your home because you have lost your income.

That is what you or anyone else is doing, who offer companies free photos and video, to better their business. Just an FYI, I am not a part 107 pilot, so I'm not stating the above for my benefit, but rather, just to point out what people offering FREE are doing to people out there trying to make a living.

 

[Cymruflyer]

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?

It appears by that statement that you do not value your work. If you are proud enough to be putting your photos on social media sites, then you must be proud of your work. By stating you offer everything you do for free for any purpose, then you are really saying you do not value your work.

If someone took one of your images and were able to create something that they could sell and suddenly made a million dollars from your work, would you still be just as happy to keep giving them your work, for free?

Sure, it is nice to see our work in someone's brochure, magazine or website but all those companies have a budget to procure content for that purpose and expect to pay for it. Suddenly when someone gives it to them for free, I am sure a few people are sitting in the corporate office thinking, what an idiot that person is, giving us stuff for free, that we would have gladly paid for. You are doing yourself an injustice and all the money you paid out for your drone etc. you are effectively giving to them.

You might like driving and if I get a job with Amazon delivering packages and decide to ask you to deliver them for me so I can get paid for it but keep all the money, would that be a smart thing for you to offer to do, just because you like driving?

 

[New England Droning]

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.

I would say from B on you have ventured onto the dark side. I "think" you can post the pictures seeing how they are not being monetized on a personal page (Facebook) where you tell people about your day or how much you love coffee. But when this entity puts your image onto their page it becomes a problem BUT I think it is safe to say since they didn't ask your permission you are still (maybe) safe. But in asking for permission to fly in there (I assume a restricted zone) You are receiving compensation by virtue that you are getting something from it. (Killer images that other drone pilots won't be allowed to get without pursuing an agreement). If they (the park) expect to be able to use your image for their social media or any other use. You have made a contract and you are both receiving compensation...
This is all my opinion and I will wade through the next few pages...

 

[Cymruflyer]

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.

I think that many who ask what the definition of recreational purpose is with drone photos, actually do understand but are wanting to somehow skirt the law and do something that they feel would probably be illegal but are looking for people to reassure them that they are not, in order to make them feel better. When you look at how many of these questions are worded, it is easy to see what their real intention is.

 

[Cymruflyer]

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.

I sometimes post a photo on a photography forum I belong to. Sometimes I add a watermark but other times I do not. However, I ALWAYS slightly crop any image going out on the web, just in case there was an issue with someone benefiting from my creation in the future.

If they say they took the photo, and it went to court, I could ask them to produce the cropped part of the image to show they actually took the photo and I could show those cropped parts, when they would not be able to. For me, that is the secret to the puzzle, they did not know it was cropped and could not produce those pieces around the edge, that I cropped out.

And no there is no way another person could ever really have been in the exact spot I was, at the same height and using the same focal length of lens, to get the exact image section of my cropped photo, that they stole.

 

[Cymruflyer]

I assume you mean if I were to do what I'm asking about, then they would have evidence. Hey, I just wrote to the FAA using my personal email and asked them about this. Obviously I'm trying to do this right but I'm not just accepting received wisdom because I think it's not clear.

The FAA wrote this back to you...
FAA: "Does posting the video serve a business purpose, including (but not limited to) generating revenue, good will, and/or advertising? If yes, then you are governed by Part 107. If no, then you may operate under the exception for recreation providing you comply with all of its provisions."

You are well aware, as are all of us now, that the park gives you and only you special permission to fly from their land. You are also aware that the park goes to the site that you post your photos and you are well aware that the park uses your photos on their website and of course you are aware that such use promotes their business,

Therefore, that last paragraph that I have included above from the FAA, clearly states that if you know such a thing, that a business or entity could benefit from you taking those photos, then that is a Part 107 operation and NOT for solely recreational purposes.

 

[Cymruflyer]

Great response from the FAA! Kudos to them!

Here is a project I have coming up and my take on using the drone. My Granddaughter is getting married in Hawaii next month with only her and her to be husband present. She will then have a reception/wedding party at my daughter's home near Kansas MO. It is a 14 acre farm/woodland that will accommodate a "tent city" for attendees. I will be doing video of this event with a number of cinema cameras and include some drone footage. Once cut and produced the video will be available for those who wish to have a copy. This could be construed as "good will" as it is a gift. I will be doing this as a recreational flier. It is my assertion that this is a group of people having fun to include the presence of a drone. I believe that to be defensible should a challenge arise.

Enter real world........

What is the probability of anybody complaining about the drone? What is the probability of the FAA covert ops, men in black, agents surveilling the event? What is the probability of anyone outside the party giving a hoot? If some FAA representative did take exception to the event what kind of "donkey" would that make him or her look like? Obviously the FAA is an aggregate of many different opinions and every possible scenario is not fully defined. Yes there is risk with this decision. That's life.

I would think that as long as you are not flying over guests, that what you are going to do should be fine. Now if you suddenly fly over guests at the reception and your drone suddenly loses control and hits a child and takes out an eye, then I don't think the parents will be so happy that you were flying your drone over them. That would be the only thing to keep in mind.

 

[Ty Pilot]

From AMA webite:

AMA’s programming requires members to affirm and sign that they have read and understand the AMA Safety Code, will receive TFR/NOTAMs through AMA’s notification system, have access to modeling clubs, receive news and information through printed publications such as Model Aviation magazine, have access to education material, comply with our evolving safety program, and be provided a two-way communication to AMA Headquarters. AMA membership also fosters responsible operations through member-only benefits such as a $2.5 million insurance policy. Nonmembers are encouraged to read and follow AMA’s Safety Handbook, but because they do not have access to these resources they are not fully operating within our safety programming.

Repeat:
are not fully operating within our safety programming. 44809: The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.

If you are not a member, by their statement, you are NOT fully operating within their safety guidelines.

AMA can say what they want, and even word things as you have shown; but the FAA (who appoints CBO's) says otherwise.

 

[Ty Pilot]

From AMA webite:
If you are not a member, by their statement, you are NOT fully operating within their safety guidelines.

And just in case anyone wants to see where it is spelled out by the FAA, on their website; that membership to a CBO is NOT required Click THIS Link

 

[Torque]

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?

If you are truly flying just for the joy of flying, why are you so intent upon sharing your photos with the world?
And if you feel your photography is so exceptional that people across the planet will be downloading it, why not just get your Part 107, watermark your photos, get credit for your talent, and still refuse money or compensation?
All aspects, both personal and commercial will be covered with only a little effort that way.

 

[Xitor]

I was flying to document bridge construction for a trail that would connect two sides of the city. Some of my posts were picked up and posted on facebook by a non profit for the trail system. I was 100% doing it for fun, not getting paid, but having a specific mission added to my enjoyment. However, I ended getting my part 107 just in case there was ever a conflict. Also at the time you couldn't fly at night with LAANC unless you were 107, but that has changed now.

 

[FlySkyJumper]

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.

Basically if you are going to make money I'm any way shape or for...let alone donate to an entity of your work you need a part 107.

Honestly though, the Part 107 cpurce I feel everyone who flies drones should be required to take it. You can take the course in the comfort of your own home and the knowledge you learn is super helpful!

Plus, it takes a couple weeks or less if you prioritize the course and costs under a 100 bucks to take the test.

It's's just worth it. You'll be a much better pilot, and it gives your credibility and the confidence you need when someone tries to challenge you.

The mandatory SAFE certificate is a joke and is achieved in 5 minutes. Maybe 10 if they made you read everything, but it's just not enough even for recreational flyers.

That's just my opinion, but for reals look into it, it'll drastically help answe your questions from thee source.

Happy Flying!

 

[Cymruflyer]

Basically if you are going to make money I'm any way shape or for...let alone donate to an entity of your work you need a part 107.

Honestly though, the Part 107 cpurce I feel everyone who flies drones should be required to take it. You can take the course in the comfort of your own home and the knowledge you learn is super helpful!

Plus, it takes a couple weeks or less if you prioritize the course and costs under a 100 bucks to take the test.

It's's just worth it. You'll be a much better pilot, and it gives your credibility and the confidence you need when someone tries to challenge you.

The mandatory SAFE certificate is a joke and is achieved in 5 minutes. Maybe 10 if they made you read everything, but it's just not enough even for recreational flyers.

That's just my opinion, but for reals look into it, it'll drastically help answe your questions from thee source.

Happy Flying!

I misread what you had stated about the course and took that for test. You are quite correct; it can be easy enough to take a course in your home and later go to a testing station and take the test.

 

[Torque]

A correction to your assumptions above.

You most definitely CAN NOT take the FAA Part 107 exam in the comfort of your own home.
You MUST take the test at a designated testing facility and pay a good chunk of money for the privilege of taking the test. I believe it is more than your suggested "under $100".

Where did you see anything that said you can take the test in your own home? You may study for the test in the comfort of your own home, but you certainly cannot take the test from your home.

He didn't say "Test".

"You can take the COURSE in the comfort of your own home and the knowledge you learn is super helpful!"