Youtube videos

[Ty Pilot]

It's what I do....everyday. I'm ready to discuss substance whenever you are, let me know.

Ah okay - good. So in post #29 you asked:

Show me in the rules or the laws where it talks about money and compensation.

In post #31 above I posted clear examples of where the FAA does indeed mention; compensation, monetary or other, and furthering a business, as activities that are excluded from 44809 (recreational UA flight) - thus requiring 107 certification.

My Question: Do you think those statements on the FAA's website and in AC 91-57C are . . . .typos? Are those statements at all confusing, misleading or otherwise contradictory - if so, how?

 

[mavic3usa]

Ah okay - good. So in post #29 you asked:

In post #31 above I posted clear examples of where the FAA does indeed mention; compensation, monetary or other, and furthering a business, as activities that are excluded from 44809 (recreational UA flight) - thus requiring 107 certification.

My Question: Do you think those statements on the FAA's website and in AC 91-57C are . . . .typos? Are those statements at all confusing, misleading or otherwise contradictory - if so, how?

No, the FAA statement are fine (although confusing to some). It is your misinterpretations of those statements that are bogus.

Please address the concerns in post #35.

 

[Ty Pilot]

No, the FAA statement are fine (although confusing to some).

Ah Okay, we agree - those statements are real and came from the FAA.

It is your misinterpretations of those statements that are bogus.

I did not interpret them - they need no interpretation as far as I am concerned.

 

[mavic3usa]

I did not interpret them - they need no interpretation as far as I am concerned.

Fine; that's what I thought. Have a good day!

 

[BobaFut]

Tell me how you end up with this situation being a part 107 requirement because a kid from Peru watches an ad on Tiktok and then watches your drone video where you are bragging about your new drone.

It's literally the argument that I have been making which is "posting videos on a monetized channel on a social media platform has not been explicitly determined by the FAA to be strictly part 107 activity." In other words, you are not required to have a government license to post a drone video on Youtube. I keep hearing something along the lines of "you need a part 107 to post a drone video on a monetized Youtube channel." I've said it over and over, it's possible there is some commercial activity going on YT (for sure) mainly because there are creators who fly their drones to further their business, we agree on that. Good on them. But there are literally millions of other posters who don't and it's not their YT channel status, their ratings or the length/content of their videos, or their viewers that determine this. It's the flight. Please tell me how a recreational flight one day turns into an illegal commercial flight because the video (from that flight) eventually found it's way to a monetized social media platform.

No offense but the only thing I get from this is that you don’t understand what monetization means or how it works.

 

[mavic3usa]

No offense but the only thing I get from this is that you don’t understand what monetization means or how it works.

For sure I understand it and my point is monetization on a social platform using videos should have nothing to do with the commercial use of a drone in the government airspace. As a hobby, I take off and my flight is for fun and I'm not getting paid to launch my drone. When I land, my involvement with the FAA is....over. But I get it, millions of us in the hobby are wrong. I've heard that.

 

[BobaFut]

For sure I understand it and my point is monetization on a social platform using videos should have nothing to do with the commercial use of a drone in the government airspace. As a hobby, I take off and my flight is for fun and I'm not getting paid to launch my drone. When I land, my involvement with the FAA is....over. But I get it, millions of us in the hobby are wrong. I've heard that.

I think I generally agree with you, but I do think that, for a very niche slice of drone operators, there is overlap between "commercial" flights and social media. I mean, OriginalDobo and Billy Kyle and others make content with a drone for the purpose of social media monetization. That's clearly "commercial" in my mind and I think the FAA could very explicitly say that you need a 107 to post drone footage to a currently monetized channel and just be done with it, but instead the FAA has muddied the waters.

The original point I made was that too many people handwring over posting stuff on YT because the FAA's rules are (intentionally?) vague. But hardly anyone is making money with drone footage and the people that are generally know what's up. Hardly anyone has or will have a monetized channel so they just don't need to worry about it.

 

[Torque]

Is the law? Create a non-monetized channel? Same for TikTok? Post the law please so we can see how this is tracked, W-2 perhaps?

What happens when the channel gets monetized later and that video starts driving traffic to the channel?

Instead of reading the article I posted and learning something, your response was "Blah blah blah....wrong."

Despite your opinion, it was correct. The answer to your above question was in the article as well:

"Keep in mind that the Part 107 license is not retroactive. If you get a license later on, it technically doesn’t cover the videos you filmed prior to having the license. It’s tempting to say that you want to just get a bunch of videos up on your YouTube channel, see how they do, and decide later on if you want to monetize, and just get your license at that point. Unfortunately, that’s not abiding by the FAA regulations, and you run the risk of getting fined."

 

[Torque]

I know more about both 44809 and 107 than you do.

Not sure which is driving you, your astounding ignorance or your astounding arrogance?

 

[mavic3usa]

Not sure which is driving you, your astounding ignorance or your astounding arrogance?

Just stating the facts.

 

[mavic3usa]

Instead of reading the article I posted and learning something, your response was "Blah blah blah....wrong."

Despite your opinion, it was correct. The answer to your above question was in the article as well:

"Keep in mind that the Part 107 license is not retroactive. If you get a license later on, it technically doesn’t cover the videos you filmed prior to having the license. It’s tempting to say that you want to just get a bunch of videos up on your YouTube channel, see how they do, and decide later on if you want to monetize, and just get your license at that point. Unfortunately, that’s not abiding by the FAA regulations, and you run the risk of getting fined."

Im glad you finally agree with me. Once a recreational flight, always a recreational flight.

 

[Droning on and on...]

This just shows how critical interpretation is.

I read 2.2.1.1 and conclude that any and all material obtained during a recreational flight can not be posted to a monetized YT channel (I believe others here share that opinion).

@mavic3usa reads exactly the same words and reaches the opposite conclusion.

So, we're back to what does the FAA say?

 

[Torque]

Do You Need a Drone License to Upload Drone Videos on YouTube? - Pilot Institute

Without a doubt, aerial videos uploaded to popular social media channels have played a big role in making drones as popular as they are right now. Those who have gained an interest in drones only in the last few years have no doubt watched a drone video that someone else shot and uploaded on...

pilotinstitute.com

 

[Droning on and on...]

I think I generally agree with you, but I do think that, for a very niche slice of drone operators, there is overlap between "commercial" flights and social media. I mean, OriginalDobo and Billy Kyle and others make content with a drone for the purpose of social media monetization. That's clearly "commercial" in my mind and I think the FAA could very explicitly say that you need a 107 to post drone footage to a currently monetized channel and just be done with it, but instead the FAA has muddied the waters.

IMO the regulations are just another example of government overreach, intrusion, and restricting citizen's liberty without a compelling, over-arching public interest.

The rules should be constrained to the operational requirements of the flight. The FAA has no compelling mandate to control whether or not someone makes money on an aviation activity. Their jurisdiction should be strictly confined to the safe, orderly operation of aircraft in the nation's airspace.

Fly recreationally and follow the rules, you should be able to do anything you want with pictures and video you take. Sell them, and the government gets to have a say in taxing the income.

Sadly, that's not the current law. The FAA is playing Commerce Dept and regulating economic activity with aircraft as well as operations.

 

[mavic3usa]

Do You Need a Drone License to Upload Drone Videos on YouTube? - Pilot Institute

Without a doubt, aerial videos uploaded to popular social media channels have played a big role in making drones as popular as they are right now. Those who have gained an interest in drones only in the last few years have no doubt watched a drone video that someone else shot and uploaded on...

pilotinstitute.com

"if you’re flying your drone to earn money or in aid of any commercial business...."

I agree.

I also agree if you're uploading your drone videos to a monetized channel and it looks like a duck....get your part 107.

 

[mavic3usa]

IMO the regulations are just another example of government overreach, intrusion, and restricting citizen's liberty without a compelling, over-arching public interest.

The rules should be constrained to the operational requirements of the flight. The FAA has no compelling mandate to control whether or not someone makes money on an aviation activity. Their jurisdiction should be strictly confined to the safe, orderly operation of aircraft in the nation's airspace.

Fly recreationally and follow the rules, you should be Abe to do anything you want with pictures and video you take. Sell them, and the government gets to have a say in taxing the income.

Sadly, that's not the current law. The FAA is playing Commerce Dept and regulating economic activity with aircraft as well as operations.

I'm trying to protect recreational flyers and preserve the drone hobby for those who want to make full use of the exception. In case anyone is interested in where I am coming from.

There are millions of current and future recreational flyers and the hobby has no chance to survive or thrive if the government has a thousand different ways of enforcing commercial activities among the hobbyists.

If you fly your drone and then sell your videos and the government wants to tax them, I'm fine with that because it would be consistent with everything else.

 

[Droning on and on...]

You read and you concluded.
I read and I concluded....otherwise.

I won't be explaining further until you decide to get serious.

Frankly, I'm not interested in your explanations as you are closed to any view other than your own. Even examples of people actually being investigated and fined for exactly what we're talking about here, makes no difference in your opinion regarding what the law is, not what you think it should be.

These examples are easy to find with Google. After yesterday's exchange, I found two in less than 60 seconds.

 

[mavic3usa]

Frankly, I'm not interested in your explanations as you are closed to any view other than your own. Even examples of people actually being investigated and fined for exactly what we're talking about here, makes no difference in your opinion regarding what the law is, not what you think it should be.

These examples are easy to find with Google. After yesterday's exchange, I found two in less than 60 seconds.

I've already comments on those and mostly agree with them. Open to them, I am for sure.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I've already comments on those and mostly agree with them. Open to them, I am for sure.

You've chosen to engage this conversation with hostility and rudeness from your first response in this thread, the latest insulting trope being, "until you decide to get serious". I don't believe you're stupid enough to truly believe my statements in this thread were unserious, so a statement like that has only one purpose.

 

[mavic3usa]

You've chosen to engage this conversation with hostility and rudeness from your first response in this thread, the latest insulting trope being, "until you decide to get serious". I don't believe you're stupid enough to truly believe my statements in this thread were unserious, so a statement like that has only one purpose.

Ok, no worries. Let me know when you are ready. I'm not saying your posts in this thread are not serious, I am saying your engagement with me I feel is not coming from a serious place. This is what happens when your posts attack the poster instead of the contents. When you get "serious" you will leave me out of it personally and address the issues directly. But I get it, always gotta make sure the poster doesn't know what he is talking about, that's the best way to tackled these tough issues.

For example: Anyone else who claims *all* the FAA rules and regulations are clear and unequivocal and leave no question for anyone to discuss is not being serious in my opinion.