Operating for Free? P3S

[TheTanger]

Well of course you can give away whatever you want to. And no one was talking about copyright laws that I remember. This is all about profiting from your Phantom. If you're talking about something else, then I misunderstood.

Yes, it's a misunderstanding. If you look back on the thread, I brought in the hobbyist concept via IRS as an incongruence between FAA guidelines and IRS laws as for the definition of a "hobby."

In any case, we have some folks in here convinced that even GIVING away your photos is illegal. Completely disagree on the basis that the COPYRIGHT owner is the one who took the photo (NOT the FAA simply because it was taken from the air), and said copyright owner can do whatever the heck they want with it provided they don't make money off it (you'd need a 333 for that of course).

On the "business" end of things...how about this example. If I made a music video using aerial footage I took out of a Southwest airplane window, along with drone footage, and music I recorded, do you think the FAA or the airline has ANY say on whether that could be sold for a profit or published on Youtube or not? Can the FAA say no more pictures out the window unless you don't sell them? Good luck with THAT.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Just. ****. At one time, you and I were butting heads. Now we're in complete agreement. What the hell happened?!

I don't know. I'm still trying to adjust to it...

 

[GoodnNuff]

Not that I have ever sold or would want to sell anything, but as a HOBBYIST I'll take the chance and GIVE away whatever the hell I want. I am WELL versed on copyright laws, thank you.

Copyright laws have nothing to do with the FAA.
Not sure where that is coming from?

 

[GoodnNuff]

Yes, it's a misunderstanding. If you look back on the thread, I brought in the hobbyist concept via IRS as an incongruence between FAA guidelines and IRS laws as for the definition of a "hobby."

In any case, we have some folks in here convinced that even GIVING away your photos is illegal. Completely disagree on the basis that the COPYRIGHT owner is the one who took the photo (NOT the FAA simply because it was taken from the air), and said copyright owner can do whatever the heck they want with it provided they don't make money off it (you'd need a 333 for that of course).

On the "business" end of things...how about this example. If I made a music video using aerial footage I took out of a Southwest airplane window, along with drone footage, and music I recorded, do you think the FAA or the airline has ANY say on whether that could be sold for a profit or published on Youtube or not? Can the FAA say no more pictures out the window unless you don't sell them? Good luck with THAT.

Where to start...

1) You can give away anything you want that you photographed. I don't think anyone has said otherwise?

2) The FAA doesn't copyright anyone's photos. I don't think anyone said that either. You can do anything you want, but if you profit from a photo taken in the air while you are the pilot (or are piloting your UAV) you become a "commercial entity" and must abide by the FAA requirements. Nada to do with copyright.

3) A passenger shooting video out the plane window on a commercial flight is not analogous to using your UAV to make videos for profit.

The IRS laws regarding hobbies: Sure, if you carve soap squirrels and sell a few at your local craft fair, you can work that into your taxes. If you take a few photos with your UAV and make some money, the IRS may look at that as a hobby, but the FAA will not. Not saying I agree with any of this, but that is the reality. And yes, I can legally film my own wedding with my drone. But I can't film yours and be compensated for it.

 

[TheTanger]

I bring in copyright laws because a photographer taking a photo of a public place instantly has ownership of the image, whether or not they are a professional or just doing it for fun. How is it different if you use a drone or take a picture from the window seat of a commercial jet? How can the FAA tell you, the copyright owner of said video or photo, that you cannot give it away since it is your work? Answer...they can't.

Venturing into the "profit" end of things there is more clarity with the 333 exemption that is required for making any profit.

EDIT: Just saw your post...I will find the posts of people saying you can't give away your drone photos.

 

[dirkclod]

I think the profile is a fabrication. Just a hunch.

I know but still funny

 

[TheTanger]

In the eyes of the FAA it could be commercial use. Tread carefully. It's a grey area.

Compensation/income/profit is not the only determining factor in the FAA's eyes.

I may have misunderstood this post or taken it out of context, but I don't think so. I believe it was in reply to the OP's question about organizations asking for free aerial imagery and everyone was saying CYA. Also, post #19 about the TV station snagging an Instagram aerial image someone posted & got warned about violating law by not having a 333 because the TV STATION might profit-even though it's the USER's copyrighted image.

It sounds like the consensus here is that it is perfectly fine to take images/video and use them how you want UNLESS you sell them (then you'd need a 333), which I can agree with. For hobby/rec users, I think there still needs to be something done to more accurately align with the IRS hobby definition. Maybe just add some wording to FAA UAV registration about profiting from it as a "hobby" instead of using a 333 for commercial purposes.

It's really ridiculous that a Realtor can't take aerial images of houses he is selling without a 333 (can you say tax-grab?), but can take images from neighbor's roof (if given permission) or a ladder/cherry picker which may be similar. However, if said realtor is selling his OWN house (BY OWNER-not through his broker), can he use aerial imagery from his own drone without a 333?

 

[dgd3]

Ahh.. stones with blood. Very good.

 

[EnterLeftDownwind]

I think whole thread goes to prove that the FAA has no clue what they are doing and don't REALLY know how to implement ANY of this properly whilst integrating it with existing commerce laws and IRS regulations.

That's because using RC aircraft for commercial purposes is a new concept. Until they can pass new regulation dealing specifically with UAS, we're stuck with the ones applied to manned aircraft for now.

 

[EnterLeftDownwind]

It sounds like the consensus here is that it is perfectly fine to take images/video and use them how you want UNLESS you sell them (then you'd need a 333), which I can agree with. For hobby/rec users, I think there still needs to be something done to more accurately align with the IRS hobby definition. Maybe just add some wording to FAA UAV registration about profiting from it as a "hobby" instead of using a 333 for commercial purposes.

"Selling" the photos is not the determination of commercial use in the FAA's eyes. It's any perceived gain, monetary or otherwise.

If a photographer typically charges $100 for house shots, and throws in the aerial drone shots for "free" the FAA will determine that to be a commercial use.

If someone approaches you and asks you to take aerial photos for them, even for free, that could be construed as commercial use. AKA you wouldn't have normally taken that picture, but only did because they asked. It's a tricky problem in the pilot world because if a friend asks you to take him to lunch somewhere in your plane, and you weren't planning on flying there until he mentioned it, depending on the circumstances the FAA may frown upon that. Of course people typically don't post their intentions on the Internet...

I could get into more and more re:commercial operations but it's tough to type in my iPad. Here's the FAA's take from their FAQ:

Do I need a Section 333 grant of exemption if I'm not charging for my services?
A. Unless you are flying only for hobby or recreational purposes, you will need FAA authorization via a Section 333 grant of exemption to fly your unmanned aircraft system (UAS) for your business. This applies even if you are only flying to supplement or aide your business and not charging fees for doing so.

Marketing? Commercial operation. Etc. etc. etc.

I'm not saying that the OPs operation would necessarily be considered a commercial operation...but that he should tread carefully. Ask yourself if the potential risk is worth the reward.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

I may have misunderstood this post or taken it out of context, but I don't think so. I believe it was in reply to the OP's question about organizations asking for free aerial imagery and everyone was saying CYA. Also, post #19 about the TV station snagging an Instagram aerial image someone posted & got warned about violating law by not having a 333 because the TV STATION might profit-even though it's the USER's copyrighted image.

It sounds like the consensus here is that it is perfectly fine to take images/video and use them how you want UNLESS you sell them (then you'd need a 333), which I can agree with. For hobby/rec users, I think there still needs to be something done to more accurately align with the IRS hobby definition. Maybe just add some wording to FAA UAV registration about profiting from it as a "hobby" instead of using a 333 for commercial purposes.

It's really ridiculous that a Realtor can't take aerial images of houses he is selling without a 333 (can you say tax-grab?), but can take images from neighbor's roof (if given permission) or a ladder/cherry picker which may be similar. However, if said realtor is selling his OWN house (BY OWNER-not through his broker), can he use aerial imagery from his own drone without a 333?

View attachment 42048

From what I understand from watching a video discussing this with an ex-FAA employee is that if you don't take the picture or video with the intent of benefiting from it and at some point in time later on someone want to use it commercially, that is ok. So in the photo you posted it should be ok as he didn't intend for the news station to use it.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

So are there restrictions what a hobbyist can do in regards to taking videos from drones, posting them on the internet in the public domain?

If the club provided a signed document that it was a 'private donation' by you as the hobbyist and there indeed was no money exchanged, it's not a commercial business contract. If you received any compensation from them, ie.. free membership to the club, perks or otherwise, then all bets are off.

Many people have businesses which the IRS considers a hobby.

When the IRS Classifies Your Business as a Hobby - TurboTax Tax Tips & Videos

Where is the line drawn in the distinction of what is a hobby by one government agency vs. another?

I am not sure where the IRS definition of a business classification has any bearing here. (In the eyes of the IRS if your business turns in a loss for three consecutive years they consider it a hobby as it's not a business that profits). But the IRS has different meanings for many terms, like "injured spouse", and it has nothing to do with injuries. But I digress. The FAA see's anything that is not strictly "hobby fun use" to be commercial. Get the answers directly from the FAA and not from an internet forum full of Wiki-Lawyers.

 

[TheTanger]

"Selling" the photos is not the determination of commercial use in the FAA's eyes. It's any perceived gain, monetary or otherwise.

If a photographer typically charges $100 for house shots, and throws in the aerial drone shots for "free" the FAA will determine that to be a commercial use.

If someone approaches you and asks you to take aerial photos for them, even for free, that could be construed as commercial use. AKA you wouldn't have normally taken that picture, but only did because they asked. It's a tricky problem in the pilot world because if a friend asks you to take him to lunch somewhere in your plane, and you weren't planning on flying there until he mentioned it, depending on the circumstances the FAA may frown upon that. Of course people typically don't post their intentions on the Internet...

I could get into more and more re:commercial operations but it's tough to type in my iPad. Here's the FAA's take from their FAQ:

Do I need a Section 333 grant of exemption if I'm not charging for my services?
A. Unless you are flying only for hobby or recreational purposes, you will need FAA authorization via a Section 333 grant of exemption to fly your unmanned aircraft system (UAS) for your business. This applies even if you are only flying to supplement or aide your business and not charging fees for doing so.

Marketing? Commercial operation. Etc. etc. etc.

I'm not saying that the OPs operation would necessarily be considered a commercial operation...but that he should tread carefully. Ask yourself if the potential risk is worth the reward.

I think this makes it clear...from the wording the OP would be completely fine because taking photos is not part of their job or business.

If however, you were a wedding photographer and "threw in" some aerial shots, that would certainly benefit your "business" even it were free so I can see why it is phrased this way. EDIT: and would require a 333.

Most people though who do not need to take photos or video as part of their job should have no problem giving away pictures to anyone who asks based on what I've just read. I disagree though that you could get into trouble because someone merely asked you for photos and you agreed to give them free ones if you just fly for fun.

Who wants some aerials of the White House???

 

[LuvMyTJ]

I think this makes it clear...from the wording the OP would be completely fine because taking photos is not part of their job or business. If however, you were a wedding photographer and "threw in" some aerial shots, that would certainly benefit your "business" even it were free so I can see why it is phrased this way.

Most people though who do not need to take photos or video as part of their job should have no problem giving away pictures to anyone who asks based on what I've just read. I disagree though that you could get into trouble because someone merely asked you for photos and you agreed to give them free ones if you just fly for fun.

What did you read that makes you have this opinion? The post you quoted makes it clear anything done not for fun is commercial.

Not a direct answer to the OP's question but interesting none the less. Gotta love ole Jim. Watch from 5:09 -

 

[TheTanger]

What did you read that makes you have this opinion? The post you quoted makes it clear anything done not for fun is commercial.

Not a direct answer to the OP's question but interesting none the less. Gotta love ole Jim. Watch from 5:09 -

Read the Answer response to the 333 question. It's fairly straightforward, no? ONLY if you have some BUSINESS related to using aerials but don't charge money is it still prohibited.

 

[Meta4]

The FAA cannot make up their own definition of a hobby when the IRS has already done so.

You can make money in a hobby. My mom breeds german shepherds and brings in considerable income, along with considerable risk and expense. The IRS has given her hobby status for their breeding hobby/business.

I am not a lawyer but my lawyer that I use for my business tells me otherwise. What I do know is what a hobby is by experience ( IRS audit) and the definition giving by the IRS to which I linked to above.

It's not hard to see that should this claim be made by the FAA, and you're not engaged in the business of ariel photography and don't make your living doing this, it's a hobby, despite what you or the FAA might claim.

The IRS concept of a hobby is 100% irrelevant here.
The FAA is in the business of aviation safety, not incomes and taxes or photographic sales.
There's no FAA ruling on hobby use. All the FAA is concerned with is are you flying for reward or compensation,
They don't care if you make a profit or if the majority of your income is from another source.
They aren't ever going to ask about those things - just was the flight for compensation.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Read the Answer response to the 333 question. It's fairly straightforward, no? ONLY if you have some BUSINESS related to using aerials but don't charge money it still be prohibited.

That is incorrect. It makes no difference if you are a photographer, a butcher or a mechanic, if you sell them it is commercial. Don't take my word for it, call or write the FAA.

 

[TheTanger]

That is incorrect. It makes no difference if you are a photographer, a butcher or a mechanic, if you sell them it is commercial. Don't take my word for it, call or write the FAA.

TJ, you said "What did you read that makes you have this opinion? The post you quoted makes it clear anything done not for fun is commercial."

I think we are reading past each other here...FREE photos are what I'm talking about and you responded if it's for pay it's commercial (and needs 333). I agree. But your comment above about "anything not done for fun is commercial" is puzzling...commercial use REQUIRES that you benefit (or your business benefits) somehow IF services were rendered for no cost. If you have no business, you have no benefit if you don't charge.

No money or business interest, no need for 333 just to fly and take pictures. If I give them to friend or family and don't charge them or expect anything in return, that's my business. I don't need to call the FAA because I don't care. Common sense tells me it's fine. I have no problem flying over a friend's house to check their roof for damage or just to get cool pix for them. A LOT of things could be covered by "flying only for hobby or recreational purposes".

Just because I pull a friend's truck out of the mud with my winch and tow them home doesn't make me a tow truck driver (is the DMV gonna bust me?), just as taking aerial photos for fun doesn't make me a professional photographer.

Regarding getting paid...if you don't do it under the table (which I would not)...I think this whole 333 thing is rather unfortunate since it requires a pilot's license which is THOUSANDS of dollars and pushes out the pure hobbyist who occasionally wants to make a little extra on the side. They just need to require certification or something and put a ceiling earnings to be more in line with a "hobby" you can make a little money with.

Do I need a Section 333 grant of exemption if I'm not charging for my services?
A. Unless you are flying only for hobby or recreational purposes, you will need FAA authorization via a Section 333 grant of exemption to fly your unmanned aircraft system (UAS) for your business. This applies even if you are only flying to supplement or aide your business and not charging fees for doing so.

 

[oakmeadows]

I think this makes it clear...from the wording the OP would be completely fine because taking photos is not part of their job or business.

If however, you were a wedding photographer and "threw in" some aerial shots, that would certainly benefit your "business" even it were free so I can see why it is phrased this way. EDIT: and would require a 333.

Most people though who do not need to take photos or video as part of their job should have no problem giving away pictures to anyone who asks based on what I've just read. I disagree though that you could get into trouble because someone merely asked you for phot and you agreed to give them free ones if you just fly for fun.

Who wants some aerials of the White House???

Oh no I can't take any more I've hundreds of them but saying that I've made a load of bucks selling the pictures to the Russians .. Oh go on say I've now broken another rule. Joke before you have a go


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[dhsprogis]

I am a hobbyist with a P3S. I have been approached by local clubs and schools programs asking if I can shoot footage for them. Neither myself or the organizations would be receiving compensation or profit from the footage. Is this considered as using the drone for commercial purposes?

I've done it. Here is my rationale:
1. No compensation generally means non-commercial.
2. Who is ever going to risk political backlash for suing a volunteer? FAA? Nah.
3. You can always say you were flying an armature flight and gave away the results.
Do it. It's a good thing.