is this legit loophole for hobbyist offering aerials??

[sar104]

I am still arguing the same point as my first post in this thread which is that the laws and or regulations are ambiguous and overreaching.

This is my first post in this thread..."Because the FAA rules are often ambiguous, and local jurisdictions often make laws which conflict with state laws, and the state laws in turn conflict with Federal laws. The FAA is no exception as evidenced by the overreaching drone registration rule which was overturned.
If you want to be a lemming and follow the rest off the cliff, that may good for you, but the questioning and exploration of the fine details of the law is necessary to the refinement of the laws so that good laws are clear and concise, and bad laws are challenged and then either overturned or modified.
Too many people accept the govt reasoning of "Because I said so" without question as if the politicians always have our best interests in mind and never make bad laws when in fact the laws are more often filled with corrupt special interest considerations (read thinly veiled bribes) and need to be challenged or at least questioned.
I would like to see more people question poorly conceived laws or rules instead of blindly following the lemming law!"

I believe you are confused as to what my original post was.
Please show me where I say anything about commerce in the original post in bold and italicised above. My comments regarding commerce were in response to later posts. You can see from the original post that my point was then and still is now about conflicting, overreaching and confusing govt laws, rules etc.
To support that assertion you need to look no further than this site to see the large number of threads and posts concerning the confusion and conflicts in jurisdiction in regards to drone laws, rules etc.

I was not arguing with your original post - I was refuting your assertion that the FAA is attempting to regulate commerce. The FAA was overreaching with the recreational drone registration rule, and it was appropriately overturned. It does not follow from that that all FAA regulation is overreaching. So what in Part 101 or Part 107, exactly, are you objecting to?

 

[BigAl07]

***************************************************************************************************

Thank You very much for your very helpful, timely response, Sir.

If you're in WNC then you're probably not terribly far from me. I am in Northwest SC, fifteen miles or so south of Highlands.

I flew a Phantom III Standard for a few months and was amazed at the quality of photos and video I could capture with that entry model. I can only imagine how great it would be to fly and shoot with one commensurate with pro-level capabilities.

My pleasure.

Yes I'm not far away. If you've ever been through WNC on I-40 you came right through Haywood County which is where I live and work. We have Waynesville and Maggie Valley which you might have heard of.

I've actually flown in areas near you. I was assigned to Oconee County last year for a Search & Rescue mission for a missing person from my area. Also we have friends on Lake Keowee (sp?) that we visit a few times a year.

 

[BigAl07]

I have not misunderstood the basis for the laws and regulations, but at this point we have all made our points and it is best that we respectfully agree to disagree.
BigAl07 I applaud you for not blocking my comments even though we obviously disagree on so many points. Any further debate on this thread would likely digress further and that was never my intent. So my final word will be to sincerely agree with BigAl107's final words "Good day and safe flights!"

I like to debate and "banter" back and forth. @sar104 can attest to that can't you sir? LOL I disagree with many but always try to stay fairly level headed and not take anything personally.

I don't block people for debating with me. Actually I don't block people/comments at all. If it comes to that point we have bigger problems and I would look into "Moderator" options rather than blocking LOL.

 

[sar104]

I like to debate and "banter" back and forth. @sar104 can attest to that can't you sir? LOL I disagree with many but always try to stay fairly level headed and not take anything personally.

I don't block people for debating with me. Actually I don't block people/comments at all. If it comes to that point we have bigger problems and I would look into "Moderator" options rather than blocking LOL.

I certainly can attest to that. And vigorous debate has always been one of the strengths of this particular forum - debate comprising more than just posting unsupported opinion and then refusing to cite supporting evidence and ignoring contrary evidence.

 

[68charger440]

I was not arguing with your original post - I was refuting your assertion that the FAA is attempting to regulate commerce. The FAA was overreaching with the recreational drone registration rule, and it was appropriately overturned. It does not follow from that that all FAA regulation is overreaching. So what in Part 101 or Part 107, exactly, are you objecting to?

I never said that ALL FAA regulation is overreaching, and the fact that any exchange of money or other compensation forces you into 107 is in my opinion further evidence of overreaching and evidence of regulation of commerce by making it unnecessarily difficult to make a dollar off of a simple photograph. As far of what part of 107 am I objecting to... that is missing the point. I don't know 101 or 107 enough to opine fully on either of them. All of the other posts after the first one were simply getting pulled or jumping from one rabbit hole to another.
My point in all of this has nothing to do with 100 or 107. The point is the overall trend of the US government to over legislate everything to death. 101 and 107 are just examples of the confusion, unneeded expense and resentment that it causes for the public as a whole. It could just as well be the EPA or any one of dozens of other government agencies that have given rise to the current political climate where the people would just as soon elect a turnip than a career politician.

 

[F3honda4me]

I never said that ALL FAA regulation is overreaching, and the fact that any exchange of money or other compensation forces you into 107 is in my opinion further evidence of overreaching and evidence of regulation of commerce by making it unnecessarily difficult to make a dollar off of a simple photograph. As far of what part of 107 am I objecting to... that is missing the point. I don't know 101 or 107 enough to opine fully on either of them. All of the other posts after the first one were simply getting pulled or jumping from one rabbit hole to another.
My point in all of this has nothing to do with 100 or 107. The point is the overall trend of the US government to over legislate everything to death. 101 and 107 are just examples of the confusion, unneeded expense and resentment that it causes for the public as a whole. It could just as well be the EPA or any one of dozens of other government agencies that have given rise to the current political climate where the people would just as soon elect a turnip than a career politician.

If we really want to get technical, the FAA is actually an unconstitutional entity, as there is no enumerated power in the constitution that gave the federal government the power to create it. But hey, we let them do all sorts of nonsense they don't have the power to do.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I never said that ALL FAA regulation is overreaching, and the fact that any exchange of money or other compensation forces you into 107 is in my opinion further evidence of overreaching and evidence of regulation of commerce by making it unnecessarily difficult to make a dollar off of a simple photograph. As far of what part of 107 am I objecting to... that is missing the point. I don't know 101 or 107 enough to opine fully on either of them. All of the other posts after the first one were simply getting pulled or jumping from one rabbit hole to another.
My point in all of this has nothing to do with 100 or 107. The point is the overall trend of the US government to over legislate everything to death. 101 and 107 are just examples of the confusion, unneeded expense and resentment that it causes for the public as a whole. It could just as well be the EPA or any one of dozens of other government agencies that have given rise to the current political climate where the people would just as soon elect a turnip than a career politician.

Let me correct you. It is untrue that "any exchange of money or other compensation forces you into 107.” If the true intent at the time of the flight was recreational, but you the later sold images or video from that flight for money or other compensation, you are not forced into 107. Contracting in advance for money or other compensation for drone images to be shot does force you into 107.

 

[sar104]

I never said that ALL FAA regulation is overreaching, and the fact that any exchange of money or other compensation forces you into 107 is in my opinion further evidence of overreaching and evidence of regulation of commerce by making it unnecessarily difficult to make a dollar off of a simple photograph. As far of what part of 107 am I objecting to... that is missing the point. I don't know 101 or 107 enough to opine fully on either of them. All of the other posts after the first one were simply getting pulled or jumping from one rabbit hole to another.
My point in all of this has nothing to do with 100 or 107. The point is the overall trend of the US government to over legislate everything to death. 101 and 107 are just examples of the confusion, unneeded expense and resentment that it causes for the public as a whole. It could just as well be the EPA or any one of dozens of other government agencies that have given rise to the current political climate where the people would just as soon elect a turnip than a career politician.

Seriously? You are asserting FAA overreach with laws that you haven't even read? Despite claiming in post #104 that you have not misunderstood them? Once again - it was not the FAA that mandated regulation of non-recreational flight - that was Congress, in Public Law 112-95 Section 332. What do you not understand about that? The FAA simply did as instructed by law, and codified the regulation of non-recreational flight in 14 CFR Part 107. There was no overreach in 14 CFR Parts 101 or 107.

Model aircraft registration was implemented via a 2015 FAA Regulatory action that was entirely separate, and struck down by the courts. There has been no challenge to 14 CFR 101 or 107, which are all the FAA has to say about sUAS.

So if, as you state, you don't know enough about 101 or 107 to have an opinion on them, what are you objecting to? If this is just a vehicle for you to rant about "big government" based on misunderstanding 14 CFR then wrong venue. If it all stems from you wanting to fly your drones in the NAS, wherever and whenever you want and with no regulation, then I hope that you find little support for that position.

 

[68charger440]

If we really want to get technical, the FAA is actually an unconstitutional entity, as there is no enumerated power in the constitution that gave the federal government the power to create it. But hey, we let them do all sorts of nonsense they don't have the power to do.

Now that's the truth!

 

[N017RW]

Please cite one reference to the constitutional validity of the FAA.

 

[F3honda4me]

Please cite one reference to the constitutional validity of the FAA.

Constitution of the United States - We the People

Article [X] (Amendment 10 - Reserved Powers)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, if there is no enumerated power in the constitution that grants the federal government the ability to do something, they have no constitutional authority to do it. Those are left to the states and its people. There is no enumerated power in the constitution that grants the federal government authority to create the FAA, along with quite a few other bureaucracies. But, starting in the late 1800s, and very early 1900s, the government started doing things it had no power to do, and the people let them do it. Then with the creation of the federal reserve in the early 1900s, it set things in motion to get us to where we are today. And to make it "official" the federal government got the supreme court in 1931 to basically say that the tenth amendment "doesn't really do anything" as if the founding fathers just created it for no reason and it could simply be ignored.

Anyways, sorry for the digression, will go back to the original topic.

 

[Sagebrush]

A constitutional thread.... good grief.

Anyway, the FAA is in there. It's just below the paragraph that allows for an air force.

SB

 

[ribjig]

It is untrue that "any exchange of money or other compensation forces you into 107.” If the true intent at the time of the flight was recreational, but you the later sold images or video from that flight for money or other compensation, you are not forced into 107. Contracting in advance for money or other compensation for drone images to be shot does force you into 107.

Scenario:
photographer NEVER contracts in advance;
but has ongoing history of successfully selling
non-aerial photos at art fairs & galleries;
then buys drone & takes aerial photos "for fun"
& new experience; then AFTERWARDS decides
to add aerial photos to hand-held photos
selling at art fairs & galleries;
this becomes ongoing pattern because the aerial
photos sell about as often as the hand-held photos;
before each new flight to take new photos, the
photographer KNOWS to think, "I am flying for fun".

How would FAA see this scenario? What tweak in
scenario is required for photographer dronist to
continue flying without "107"???

Remember:
a. no advanced pay or advance request for specific photo
b. every take-off thinking "this is for fun"

 

[N017RW]

Not an expert but sounds sociopathic.
A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it’s weak. He may know that the action is wrong, and he might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won’t stop his behavior.

 

[sar104]

Not an expert but sounds sociopathic.
A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it’s weak. He may know that the action is wrong, and he might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won’t stop his behavior.

Probably sociopathic, but clearly also schizophrenic.

 

[68charger440]

Sounds like it might be an apt description of a great many politicians, lawyers and corporate titans.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Scenario:
photographer NEVER contracts in advance;
but has ongoing history of successfully selling
non-aerial photos at art fairs & galleries;
then buys drone & takes aerial photos "for fun"
& new experience; then AFTERWARDS decides
to add aerial photos to hand-held photos
selling at art fairs & galleries;
this becomes ongoing pattern because the aerial
photos sell about as often as the hand-held photos;
before each new flight to take new photos, the
photographer KNOWS to think, "I am flying for fun".

How would FAA see this scenario? What tweak in
scenario is required for photographer dronist to
continue flying without "107"???

Remember:
a. no advanced pay or advance request for specific photo
b. every take-off thinking "this is for fun"

Knowing to think, "I am flying for fun" won't cut it, if the totality of the circumstances suggest that the true intent of subsequent flights is to potentially sell any of the images, because of the "ongoing pattern."
To continue flying for fun without a 107, don't sell any images from subsequent flights. Limit the images being sold to those created before the pattern developed. However, between you and me and the fencepost, realistically nobody from the FAA is going to demand to see the date the image was created, and try and figure out your intent on that date. You aren't going to be forced to get a 107. If you continue to make money off those previous images, consider getting your 107. You may have found a real business opportunity to justify the $250 expense and a weekend studying.

 

[randaljds]

It has NOTHING to do with making $$ (contrary to what many believe and try to spread on the internet). It has 100% to do with the INTENT of the flight. If you're flying to take pictures/vid for any reason other than Hobby/Recreational then it requires a Part 107 RPIC certificate. No exceptions or loopholes for the hobbyist.

Not to sure... hypothetically.

I have a phantom for hobby flying and I decide to take some photos of my best mates house as he lets me fly on his property. He likes some of the photos I’ve taken and asks me for copies, I happily burn him a CD as a gift.

Nothing illegal at this point?

2 weeks later I see those photos on the board at the local real estate office and hear somebody outside saying... that photo is going to sell that dump..

Still nothing illegal other than a possible copyright breach, but hey this is a mate?

Three months later settlement happens on my mates house and he got an awesome price for it from an investor who saw some potential in the place. Mate then hands me a couple of grand, shakes my hand and says thank you if you hadn’t of given me those photos I couldn’t have gotten anywhere near that price!

Legal or illegal?

I go and then the same thing happens two weeks later in the other side of town... dam it every time I find somewhere decent to partake in the hobby the buggers sell it from under me!

 

[N017RW]

Again, it’s the intent of the flight.

However eventually a pattern develops and then it’s between you and your morals.

 

[BigAl07]

If when you did the flight you was just flying for fun/recreation then no harm done regardless what happens "down the road".

Now if you pictures keep showing up on MLS then you have a lot of mates or you're trying to run a business through a loophole.

Always the INTENT of the FLIGHT as stated above.