Being a hobbyist drone pilot actually pays

[Drestin Black]

Man! The dude did the hotel a solid for a couple pix, got a couple drinks in return. Technically this would be a part 107.

And, technically, driving 1 mph over the speed limit is breaking the law.

If the FAA pursued this I'd be one pissed off judge who should condemn them for wasting tax payers money, the FAAs resources, the courts resources and the judges time and promptly dismiss it.

Some here want no good deed to go unpunished.

 

[Drestin Black]

Heh, watch drinking and flying! Lol

Did you see his post where he crashed said drone upon said hotel roof after a few drinks? Priceless.

 

[Neon Euc]

Did you see his post where he crashed said drone upon said hotel roof after a few drinks? Priceless.

Lol and it was at night *slaps head* thought the drone was just in front of the hotel so I went lower only to smack it on the roof, then it bounced, landed upside down and then the heavens opened and it rained 14 hours solid lol. Got it two days later and despite a few rusty screws and damaged props... It works perfectly. Haven't flown it but just armed it up, all motors work with no errors. Will try today and let it hoover just to make sure the compass, GPS, and landing sensors work.

 

[John Decker]

Look at it like this... If Neon had a weapon, handed it to Loz and Loz fired the weapon causing harm to someone... who is at fault? The person initiating the action is at fault/blame for the action (positive or negative).

I had to look at photo ownership/copyright issues back in the 70s (in the UK) as a photographer for a London paper. It was fascinating, depending on who owned the camera and/or the film and who took the photo. Back then it wasn't as simple as who pressed the button.. doubtless things have moved on a bit, but I wouldn't assume the obvious answer is the right one.

 

[BigAl07]

I had to look at photo ownership/copyright issues back in the 70s (in the UK) as a photographer for a London paper. It was fascinating, depending on who owned the camera and/or the film and who took the photo. Back then it wasn't as simple as who pressed the button.. doubtless things have moved on a bit, but I wouldn't assume the obvious answer is the right one.

Well.... I've been in the photo industry for a few decades now, although in the US only, and I can tell you with zero hesitation that in today's industry it is who pressed the button. Other regions and/or eras may be different but in this day and time, in the US, it comes down to who pressed the button or pulled the trigger.

 

[John Locke]

it comes down to who pressed the button or pulled the trigger.

What if Litchi took the photo?

 

[John Decker]

What if Litchi took the photo?

Did I loan you the money to pay for the software?

Who programmed the flight path?

That's the sort of annoying scenario I had back in the day.
The simplicity of modern-day USA would have been welcome!
Who knows, maybe it's simpler in the UK now, too.

 

[Kcgunesq]

Absolutely correct. Hey, he can afford the 5 year vacation in a gated community and the $ 250 K fine.

IMHO, the FAA would be foolish to even contemplate prosecuting on these facts. And I suspect they agree.

The done operator doesn't lose first amendment rights just because his camera has wings.

I'll assume for the moment that the Constitution permits greater regulation on "commercial" flying. But this is too far from what any reasonable person could understand as commercial.

 

[anotherlab]

IMHO, the FAA would be foolish to even contemplate prosecuting on these facts. And I suspect they agree.

The done operator doesn't lose first amendment rights just because his camera has wings.

I'll assume for the moment that the Constitution permits greater regulation on "commercial" flying. But this is too far from what any reasonable person could understand as commercial.

FAA would look pretty foolish prosecuting, since this occurred in Brexitland.

If he was in the US, how exactly would the First Amendment apply in this case? I'm assuming that you are referring to the freedom of press part of it. Using that argument is like saying it's OK for a reporter to drive without a license if the purpose was to report on a story.

 

[Kcgunesq]

FAA would look pretty foolish prosecuting, since this occurred in Brexitland.

If he was in the US, how exactly would the First Amendment apply in this case? I'm assuming that you are referring to the freedom of press part of it. Using that argument is like saying it's OK for a reporter to drive without a license if the purpose was to report on a story.

My answer was premised on "if this had been in the US". Sorry for the confusion.

No, likely not the rights of the press, though a few more facts, if true could change that. More along the lines of photography as speech. As long as he intended the photograph to be communicative to a particular audience, he's arguably covered. For example, he intends to communicate to his Facebook friends "look at this hotel. Isn't it cool?", he arguably comes within the first amendment.

But here, we know his audience, and we can surmise a message or two.

Change the facts a bit, say a publicly owned building in disrepair, and make the message "look at how poorly our city's buildings are maintained".

Etc.

About the only way you lose is to tell someone that you will never share the photos and/there is nothing to be communicated.

 

[anotherlab]

My answer was premised on "if this had been in the US". Sorry for the confusion.

No, likely not the rights of the press, though a few more facts, if true could change that. More along the lines of photography as speech. As long as he intended the photograph to be communicative to a particular audience, he's arguably covered. For example, he intends to communicate to his Facebook friends "look at this hotel. Isn't it cool?", he arguably comes within the first amendment.

But here, we know his audience, and we can surmise a message or two.

Change the facts a bit, say a publicly owned building in disrepair, and make the message "look at how poorly our city's buildings are maintained".

Etc.

About the only way you lose is to tell someone that you will never share the photos and/there is nothing to be communicated.

I'm sorry, but that's not how the First Amendment works with regards to the freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

If this situation had occurred in the US and the FAA decided go after this person, they are not prohibiting the free exercise of speech. They are going after a violation of FAA rules. Look at it this way. If you were driving around in your car without a license and filming some demonstration, it would not be a First Amendment violation to be arrested for driving without a license.

The First Amendment does not enable actions that would be otherwise prohibited by law. It prohibits the government from restricting your rights when there is nothing else that would prevent those actions from occurring.

 

[WV. Rootman]

I'm sorry, but that's not how the First Amendment works with regards to the freedom of speech.

If this situation had occurred in the US and the FAA decided go after this person, they are not prohibiting the free exercise of speech. They are going after a violation of FAA rules. Look at it this way. If you were driving around in your car without a license and filming some demonstration, it would not be a First Amendment violation to be arrested for driving without a license.

The First Amendment does not enable actions that would be otherwise prohibited by law. It prohibits the government from restricting your rights when there is nothing else that would prevent those actions from occurring.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a protected right. I know, being nitpicking. It is funny, they have seemed to have taken some of our right and tried to make them a privilege with a lot of conditions tied to them.

 

[Deleted member 1555]

I question how insane it is that we even need to have a discussion about whether you neef a 107 to tak a picture of a hotel that may be usef on a brochure. We are really out of control here in the states. And yes, I am a 107 licensed pilot.

 

[Deleted member 1555]

@Uncle Stumpy that is absolutely 100% INCORRECT! Either it's a hobby flight (meaning recreational), Public Use COA, or Part 107 flight. There is no grey area period. Keep in mind that it doesn't even have to pertain to $$ (barter etc) for it to require Part 107 credentials.

This doesn't mean it doesn't happen all the time but lots of crimes happen all the time but just because they happen doesn't diminish they are ILLEGAL.

Did you really just refer to this as a crime? I am stunned.

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.

 

[anotherlab]

Driving a car is a privilege, not a protected right. I know, being nitpicking. It is funny, they have seemed to have taken some of our right and tried to make them a privilege with a lot of conditions tied to them.

It's not nitpicking, it's exactly the point I was making. Flying a drone is a privilege, not a protected right.

 

[macoman]

Did you really just refer to this as a crime? I am stunned.

Nope, I was just saying that if you take a video or photo and use it for commercial purposes, the FAA stays that you need part 107 license. I am not implying that the OP committed a crime. He don't live in the US but let say for example that he live in the US. He still didn't commit any crime. He just was not informed of the rules. The FAA is not going to prosecute you for commiting a single offense. Well, it depends the severity. But this is clearly not a crime.

 

[BigAl07]

Let's keep the conversation clear... I am NOT saying the OP (Neon Euc) broke any US laws/regulations because he clearly is not in the US of A here.

Did you really just refer to this as a crime? I am stunned.

@frankdcohen please enlighten me as to how violating the FAA's Title 14 CFR (FARs) is not illegal? It would be a criminal offense. Civil Law does not apply when dealing with a Government entity so this would indeed be a criminal offense. Granted it's a very slight/minor offense but we don't have "degree of severity" when it comes to Aviation Law. Either you break them or you don't. You really don't "Sort of" break them.

Is the FAA going to come knocking on your door for taking a couple of pictures for someone "privately" if there is no incident? 99.9999% not. Does that mean that a law/regulation was not broken? Absolutely NOT!

 

[Deleted member 1555]

Let's keep the conversation clear... I am NOT saying the OP (Neon Euc) broke any US laws/regulations because he clearly is not in the US of A here.



@frankdcohen please enlighten me as to how violating the FAA's Title 14 CFR (FARs) is not illegal? It would be a criminal offense. Civil Law does not apply when dealing with a Government entity so this would indeed be a criminal offense. Granted it's a very slight/minor offense but we don't have "degree of severity" when it comes to Aviation Law. Either you break them or you don't. You really don't "Sort of" break them.

Is the FAA going to come knocking on your door for taking a couple of pictures for someone "privately" if there is no incident? 99.9999% not. Does that mean that a law/regulation was not broken? Absolutely NOT!

I guess I'm just not legalistic enough for this discussion. Respectfully disengaging.

 

[KDCypP4Adv]

Here's another nice story in line with the OP's.
I am on the island of Cyprus (in Eastern Europe in Mediterranean Sea) and when my nephew was taking out a jetski and other Watersports fun vehicles, I asked the renters permission to take drone footage to which they were delighted and asked if they could have the footage (as I expected ).
I managed to get some nice filming and they kindly gave me free of charge their quite professional photos taken of my nephew (usually they charge 20 Euros).
Needless to say I went out and bought 20 Euros worth of pints (or centilitres as we say over here )
Everyone was happy through this wonderful flying machine of the future!!

 

[Neon Euc]

Awesome story there mate this is the kind of things we need to hear about. I mean.... We all quickly write about our bad experience with other people... But the drones can actually help us out.