FAA just called me

[Driffill]

Be careful of those warnings, according to what I read, they'll shut your YouTube Channel down indefinitely.

Now this is funny^^^

Nope never gonna happen, why because posting videos on youtube is not considered commercial use, however I'd like to see links stating what you read.

As for the OP, he was just trolling us, otherwise there would be a copy of the official letter posted by now.

Don't be so sure!

As it stands at the moment, I can record a video and it can be use for a commercial purpose! However, I myself cannot accept any money for the video! How do you think DJI is able to show demo videos???

I already have a bunch of videos on my YouTube channel, how am I ment to know what people are using the videos I have released into the public domain for! That is the number one loophole being exploited currently!

Shutting down the offending YouTube channels is one option, and is less likely to attract public outrage than changing privacy laws!

. . . Still think it could never happen?

 

[will27]

I'm a private pilot and well versed in FAA regulations. The "gotcha" on UAV flying has nothing to do with recent laws or rules and everything to do with classification of aircraft. There is a long standing rule that doesn't allow experimental aircraft to be used for commercial purposes. This is obviously a safety thing as experimental aircraft rely on owners who build them to adhere to the rules instead of annual FAA checks done by certified mechanics. Experimental aircraft are flown at a pilot's own risk, and has different insurance requirements since they are less regulated. Where it gets weird is when the FAA put RC aircraft under their jurisdiction. They figured most RC aircraft are built by owners so they lumped them into the experimental aircraft category. As such, no commercial operations. They have realized the error in their ways and are slowly moving towards modifying the rules for UAV's.

 

[martcerv]

As a variant on this, and there are many, I have been getting a lot of pushback from YouTube lately on my videos. Every time they catch any soundtrack with third party music they have been putting a warning on my video manager page up to outright bans on mobile devices or some countries. Sometimes this is even me playing basic folk tune bagpipe type stuff, crazy! I've challenged some of their claims successfully, but caved in others. It's not like I'm using these goofy YouTube videos commercially, but they don't see it that way. Some of the soundtrack music owners have tagged my videos at the bottom with a link to their website to buy the original if interested. i think thats fair and works for everybody.

Bottom line is, if your video COULD be used commercially, it is deemed as being commercial, and up to you to fight it out otherwise. And that is probably how the FAA would see it too.

Be careful of those warnings, according to what I read, they'll shut your YouTube Channel down indefinitely.

Now this is funny^^^

Nope never gonna happen, why because posting videos on youtube is not considered commercial use, however I'd like to see links stating what you read.

As for the OP, he was just trolling us, otherwise there would be a copy of the official letter posted by now.

The YouTube issue with posting anything that is not your own creation is a different story all together when they block an audio track. Its part of the YouTube terms of use but they don't always get applied consistently and this can change day to day on any video posted on yt.

If your video is flagged either by the auto detection system or another user with claims of a copyright breach then a note will be applied to the account. The acknowledged content owner then has commercial rights to the video which is a bit funny as they then get full rights even though 99% of the time the video is all yours just with someone else's audio. They decide how your video can be used by either blocking audio, blocking in some countries or they let it play as is and get any ad revenue out of it. I have had video's blocked even when all content was 100% my own including a separate issue with GoPro themselves contacting me directly. Anything you post publicly must be 100% your own content or you need written permission expressing you have permission to use anything not your own creation, any time that something is not yours it may be blocked and a strike may be placed on your account. 3 strikes on YT and your account will be shut down with all video's deleted, you can see your account disputed video claims in the video manager and some info here https://support.google.com/youtube/answ ... 3?hl=en-GB

The way that this goes back into youtube and commercial usage is that every video on yt is being used commercially. Either by the up-loader being a YT partner and getting some ad revenue, or simply yt getting revenue from your videos as every video with an advertisement is technically a commercial use of that video. The only way that a yt video is not being used commercially is if the uploader is a yt partner and they have disabled ad's on their video so no revenue is generated for anyone and this would be les then .001% of youtube uploads I think so they are all commercial use.

 

[FangsCPO]

It's for using copyright protected music. Not for just videos. It's all there policies section.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

 

[rolling]

This is the guide I go by, obviously I'm Australian. But it's similar to the regs in the us . . . .

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013C ... c358722592

Section 3, 101.295.

It also covers use of hobby aeroplanes and balloons and kites!


To any Aussies reading this . . . I watched the state of origin rugby last night, I wonder how close to being classed as a "drone" the "spider-cam" is??? Same as the cable strung cameras they have in the USA for the NFL etc

Have you seen the Fox Sports Australia FoxKopter? I want to know what sort of regulations they have to abide by? my understanding is that under the Australian law your not allowed to fly within 30m of other people!
for those who have not seen it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3vpx9E6He4

 

[Driffill]

This is the guide I go by, obviously I'm Australian. But it's similar to the regs in the us . . . .

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013C ... c358722592

Section 3, 101.295.

It also covers use of hobby aeroplanes and balloons and kites!


To any Aussies reading this . . . I watched the state of origin rugby last night, I wonder how close to being classed as a "drone" the "spider-cam" is??? Same as the cable strung cameras they have in the USA for the NFL etc

Have you seen the Fox Sports Australia FoxKopter? I want to know what sort of regulations they have to abide by? my understanding is that under the Australian law your not allowed to fly within 30m of other people!
for those who have not seen it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3vpx9E6He4

"Events" can apply for exceptions for particular use, any rc copter accident would be one of the thing that's covered under the "no liability for loss or injury" on the event condition of entry terms (if they are smart enough to have added it in the the Full Version of the terms).

Under the American ruling (and probably ours) even the "cable-strung" cameras fall in to the UAV category. Do you remember those cams the AFL, NFL and NRL used? The "eagle-eye" "sky-cam" etc? They would need exceptions and possibly an COA or OC to use those! I know there is a cable cam along the main straight on Bathurst, and in the CASA list of Certified Operators its has a certified business in Bathurst NSW.

 

[JustJames]

This is a sobering post. Very. Scary. This thing is fun but this has got me nervous to even make any kind of videos to share with family or friends. I am not in a position to make money from this thing but it crossed my mind. I hope this gets sorted out in a timely manner. In the mean time I will continue to improve my flying and video/photography. It is just a hobby but I would love to have the "option" to go the other way. For now i'll keep my videos private and share with those close to me.

James :shock:

 

[THell]

guessing one way around this would be to shoot as you normally do... you are shooting out of interest and fun.. then post a low res video on youtube (watermarked) if someone wants a better copy of the video (hi res) no watermark then they are "paying" you for the Time to "enhance:" the video and remove the watermark...

not paying you to shoot the video but "enhance" a video you shot for fun...


as a wedding photographer for 15 years I have had to do all sorts of "skirting" around example. i had a couple who absolutely wanted to shoot in a local park here.. but the park charges the couple $200.00 per hour to be photographed in their public place...

They say that you have exclusive use of the area and that they stop the public from using it this is why they charge.. well I have had 4 couples pay the $200 plus tax and have had to deal with "public" walking though my shot so stopping in front of my camera to speak to the bride and say congratulations bla bla... to the point where I have had an assistant video all this then force the park to refund my clients.

so now I just show up shoot and if anyone comes out I say "oh no worries we are just shooting we don't mind public in the area at all so we don't need your service to stop the public..... they usually get frustrated after I ignore them and leave...


another location will let any pro shoot but only charges if you are shooting a wedding... (with the big white dress on ) by the way this is a church and require a $350.00 "donation" so I speak to my clients and tell them this we go there anyway and just choose not to donate... I had a client actually tell them (which I could not stop laughing) that they already donated.. then they go and look up all the paperwork and by the time they come back we are almost done.. the client told them Oh we donate to our church.. which is for the same God isn't it....

yea huge laugh...

if and that is if I use my P2V for any Airial photos (for local paper) etc I will have them either pay me for my "time" to enhance the video or better yet have them make a donation to the Humane Society (which I do ) or another charity in my name..... then I am doing good for another registered charity and if the govt says anything well then that will hit the paper... shame on them


Most likely I will just use my P2V for fun and if something comes my way then shoot it for fun and accept a "donation"

 

[Qwadjok]

How about Amazon then, using RC's to make deliveries? It's been on the news last week and this week. Isn't that using quads, or hex qwads for commercial business purposes? 60 minutes reported tonight that several Aerospace companies want to work with Amazon on creating these new delivery drones. Why can they use them for commercial purposes, but you and I cant.

Also, has anyone challenged this in court? Since when can the FAA block a tax paying citizen from making a living or charging for services especially when it is below 400 feet and on public lands paid by your taxes or even on private lands as long as you are far enough from any airports.

If I do a video or someone, I'll have them just write a check to a non-profit organization of my choice donated to them in my name.

If you are a legal business in your state, and pay your taxes, :lol: you should be able to live the American dream and start your own business.

Isn't this just another form of creative art? Are artists now being attacked by the FAA?

Government control.

As for music rights in videos, Google "creative commons license for music".

PS: Remember what you say and post on line can and may come back to haunt you. Don't post info the FAA or any other agency can use. Next, the NSA will be tapping into the video feeds on these quads! :lol:

 

[Timtro]

I know this is entirely too logical to be serioulsy considered, but have a suggestion for the FAA, since we now know they are reading this forum:

Instead of wasting a lot of time, energy and government resources tracking down and attempting to fine a few thousand people, how about providing a method for obtaining a temporary (1 year) restricted license until the FAA can get around to building the necessary structure? ...They could list specific approvable UAV models (eg. with GPS nav, etc.) define specific operating limitations and then provide a temporary (limited) registration process too pave the way to certification. That database would then simplify the process of moving to a formal licensing system in an orderly manner. Manufacturers should be actively pushing to have their products ready for approval by having the necessary forms ready to submit when the time comes.

I have no problem jumping through reasonable hoops and passing tests. Just don't slam the door and then totally ignore the hot-dogger who's flying through tunnels and under bridges... but all "non-profit", of course. That's just asking for trouble for all concerned. Put necessary limits on the unlicensed hobbyists (100 ft) and then go after the abusers, but give responsible people the right to fly responsibly. Now, not a year (or more) from now. Otherwise it will be like swatting so many mechanical flies.

I had bad experiences with the Department of Professional Regulation in Florida -- They only enforce the rules on those who are licensed but they "don't have resources" to enforce the rules on those working without a license ...which properly licensed businesses compete with. The subtle message there is......

I don't think FAA really wants to create that kind of situation with UAVs.

 

[OI Photography]

How about Amazon then, using RC's to make deliveries? It's been on the news last week and this week. Isn't that using quads, or hex qwads for commercial business purposes? 60 minutes reported tonight that several Aerospace companies want to work with Amazon on creating these new delivery drones. Why can they use them for commercial purposes, but you and I cant.

They can't, at least not currently. Jeff Bezos stated that they expected to have to wait for the new FAA regs just like the rest of us. Besides, the technology needed to make what he's planning a feasible reality may not be here before the laws anyway.

If anything, the press Amazon has generated for the issue has already made the idea of commercial drone use easier to swallow for legislators and the general public as well, and I think it works in our favor.

 

[hurseyc]

We should all slap some amazon logos on our phantoms and get people talking. Kidding of course.

 

[Pull_Up]

We should all slap some amazon logos on our phantoms and get people talking. Kidding of course.

That's a GREAT idea! "Amazon PrimeAir Test Vehicle" in big letters ought to get some conversations started. If I tied an empty Amazon cardboard box around the camera on my Vision it would definitely look the part.

 

[peter nap]

We should all slap some amazon logos on our phantoms and get people talking. Kidding of course.

That's a GREAT idea! "Amazon PrimeAir Test Vehicle" in big letters ought to get some conversations started. If I tied an empty Amazon cardboard box around the camera on my Vision it would definitely look the part.

We could put Laser Ship on them when we have flayaways :lol:

 

[Corben]

You could issue them coupons or vouchers for money and then they use the voucher to redeem for your services…

 

[jfalsken]

It is the law in the USA that you cannot make money or offer filming services to anyone, While flying a Rc. The AMA informs all of it's pilots and members this information. The FAA is going to review it's current law, which is slated somewhere around 2015. To review the commercial aspects and other possible restrictions to the current law regarding fly filming platforms. Until then using your Rc to film for fun is legal, but illegal for commercial use in the USA. More people should join the AMA to insure we have a voice in the FAA's new revisions of the current law. Given Amazon's announcement of GPS delivery by copters. We can hope changes will be made to allow commercial use of drones. Until then your grounded for charging for the service.

 

[kenskid]

LOL...that would be cool.

We should all slap some amazon logos on our phantoms and get people talking. Kidding of course.

 

[myvrodrocks]

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/hea ... 0-%20(2010)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[havasuphoto]

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2010/perry%20-%20(2010)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

404 error-file not found.

 

[Timtro]

Just saw a tweet on what the lawyer representing Trappy presented. That attorney is making a very good case.