Being a hobbyist drone pilot actually pays

Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
3,591
Reaction score
1,540
Age
43
Wow spoke to the hotel manager about flying my drone as I am staying there. Said I will happily take a few pics of the hotel free of charge as I like it here and he can use it for he's site. He kindly gave me 2 free pints [emoji4] what a gentleman. Will take great shots of the hotel for him
1504790828098.jpg

Just goes to show guys...not everyone hates drones... Use it to your advantage [emoji4][emoji4]
 
The thing is that don't know if you are in the US but even if you are not charging money for it...if the hotel use it for business purposes that is considered commercial and you need part 107 license.
I'm pretty sure he's not in the US but you are 100% correct IF it were in the US that would fall under Civil UAS Operations requiring Part 107 or flying under a Public Use COA.
 
Luckily I am in the UK. It was me flying then the owner of the hotel, so I let him have a go, took a few pics and got two free pints. Seems like a good deal for 60 seconds of flying [emoji6]
 
  • Like
Reactions: iflyp3s
I still question whether a Part 107 is really justified in this exact instance. First of all there are only two classifications of UAS operators. Hobbyist and commercial operators. A Hobbyist is defined as anyone flying for hobby or recreational purposes only. The FAA gave an example as someone flying strictly for the pure enjoyment of flying, A commercial operator is someone flying for pay or compensation or even for the hopes of compensation. This person needs a Part 107, of a COA. I forget the exact wording but I seem to remember furtherance of business being in there somewhere too. So in Neon's case if the hotel manager were to launch a drone with the intent to take photos of his hotel which he planned to use in some type of advertisement. That would require a 107. Neon's intent wasn't to fly to help the hotel. He was on vacation and just wanted permission to fly his craft. His intent wasn't to further the financial gain of the hotel I assume. It was because he enjoyed flying his drone. The photos he offered to take and turn over to the hotel operator we have no idea what the manager intended to do with them. Who knows if he was even in a position to add them to any type of brochure or advertisement. So lets say he did nothing with them other then file them away some where, would a 107 still be needed? It has to do with intent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neon Euc
The idea was to fly and take pics of the hotel and also the scenery. I took pics of he's hotel as he liked to see what it is like at a different angle. He enjoyed flying the drone and when I landed he bought me two beers. That's when I said he is more then welcome to use the pics if he wanted too. We didn't agree before the flight to use my pics. It was at the end as I was sipping the beers I mentioned he is more then welcome to use the pics in any way he wants. Hope that clears things up [emoji4]
 
  • Like
Reactions: UpLift Aerial
I still question whether a Part 107 is really justified in this exact instance. First of all there are only two classifications of UAS operators. Hobbyist and commercial operators. A Hobbyist is defined as anyone flying for hobby or recreational purposes only. The FAA gave an example as someone flying strictly for the pure enjoyment of flying, A commercial operator is someone flying for pay or compensation or even for the hopes of compensation. This person needs a Part 107, of a COA. I forget the exact wording but I seem to remember furtherance of business being in there somewhere too. So in Neon's case if the hotel manager were to launch a drone with the intent to take photos of his hotel which he planned to use in some type of advertisement. That would require a 107. Neon's intent wasn't to fly to help the hotel. He was on vacation and just wanted permission to fly his craft. His intent wasn't to further the financial gain of the hotel I assume. It was because he enjoyed flying his drone. The photos he offered to take and turn over to the hotel operator we have no idea what the manager intended to do with them. Who knows if he was even in a position to add them to any type of brochure or advertisement. So lets say he did nothing with them other then file them away some where, would a 107 still be needed? It has to do with intent.
Pretty sure it doesn't matter what his intent was. The use of the images/video for ANY commercial purpose would require him to have Part 107 certificate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miltrez
I believe the owner taking the picture would need the part 107, or be under the direct supervision/control of a part 107 pilot, to use the photographs commercially (such as on his website).
I think that is funny. I can't take a picture of my own place for commercial reasons. What are the rules for Great Britain?
 
I think that is funny. I can't take a picture of my own place for commercial reasons. What are the rules for Great Britain?
In the US you can't take pictures of your own place for commercial reasons without part 107 no. If you use the photos for any advertisement, it is considered commercial use in the US. (irregardless what the intent was when the photo was taken)
I have no idea what the regulations are in Great Britain.

Neon is not in the US anyways.
Besides, he got free beer, who wouldn't work for free beer!? Good job Neon!
 
Last edited:
What would you need in Canada? Someone I know wants me to take an aerial photo(s) of their property. NOT for comercial use, just because they want an aerial photo(s). I told them I would do it free of charge but they insists the pay me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neon Euc
I still question whether a Part 107 is really justified in this exact instance. First of all there are only two classifications of UAS operators. Hobbyist and commercial operators. A Hobbyist is defined as anyone flying for hobby or recreational purposes only. The FAA gave an example as someone flying strictly for the pure enjoyment of flying, A commercial operator is someone flying for pay or compensation or even for the hopes of compensation. This person needs a Part 107, of a COA. I forget the exact wording but I seem to remember furtherance of business being in there somewhere too. So in Neon's case if the hotel manager were to launch a drone with the intent to take photos of his hotel which he planned to use in some type of advertisement. That would require a 107. Neon's intent wasn't to fly to help the hotel. He was on vacation and just wanted permission to fly his craft. His intent wasn't to further the financial gain of the hotel I assume. It was because he enjoyed flying his drone. The photos he offered to take and turn over to the hotel operator we have no idea what the manager intended to do with them. Who knows if he was even in a position to add them to any type of brochure or advertisement. So lets say he did nothing with them other then file them away some where, would a 107 still be needed? It has to do with intent.

These endless discussions of what constitutes commercial activity are as irrelevant as the regulations. The regulations attempt to promote safety in the air by regulating any flying that has a commercial purpose. Congress won't allow the FAA to do this to "hobbyists." But from a standpoint of safety it's ridiculous to require a high degree of compliance from "commercial" flying while maintaining a very broad and lax mandate for "hobby" flying. For most serious users the object of flying an expensive drone with a camera is to get photos or video you can share. Maybe the FAA thinks we all just want to fly in circles like model airplane enthusiasts do. The point is these videos are seen online by tens of thousands of people, and these views generate ad revenue, or serve to promote the photographer or videographer; all commercial purposes! Just go online and look at the most awesome, dramatic footage people have done. And tell me it's legal. I don't have the stomach to take that kind of risk or liability and have mostly stopped flying to avoid problems. Except for flying in a very narrowly defined manner, and constantly being in contact with the FAA for waivers I really don't know how to do any aerial photography without crossing a line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nighthawk5112
The thing is that don't know if you are in the US but even if you are not charging money for it...if the hotel use it for business purposes that is considered commercial and you need part 107 license.

Absolutely correct. Hey, he can afford the 5 year vacation in a gated community and the $ 250 K fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macoman
Absolutely correct. Hey, he can afford the 5 year vacation in a gated community and the $ 250 K fine.
You can count the number of fines and cases of commercial drone infringements on one hand by the FAA. The FAA simply doesn't have the staff to go after anyone for small potatoes like this. And if the OP had got caught in the US for doing this first hand, lets say there was an FAA official at the bar next to him..... the FAA would never prosecute or cite the OP, because OP had no idea the hotel mgr would give him anything. He was only offering the photos to be nice, and obtain flight permission during vacation. The OP has no idea what the hotel owner is going to do with the photos, it was a gift from the OP. This is clearly a weak case, it would never go anywhere, a pure waste of anyone's time, which is exactly why the FAA doesn't pursue this kind of situation, it would be a waste of tax payer dollars.
 
From my knowledge of UK regs this would certainly be an infringement of them if the OP had taken the pictures, as they would be or could be used for commercial gain at some point. However, if the manager took the pictures then he owns the copyright to them no as such if he used the. For commercial gain it would be he that is at fault not the OP.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,352
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic