Pay for regular ground photos, free drone photos, no P107

Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
1,125
Reaction score
799
Age
60
Location
Sterling Heights, MI
Now, I’m SURE this won’t cause a huge debate and tons of replies and pointing to laws vs guidelines and opinions but... here we go.

So, there is a guy I ran into a few weeks back, we started talking drone business and it comes out that he doesn’t have his 107, yet our conversation was about making money shooting drone footage. Here is the summary of his method: he charges to take ordinary photos using his DSLR on the ground (of houses, this is for real estate) and the then gives the clients, for no extra charge, drone footage. His website is careful never to distinguish two prices between with vs without drone footage. He only has one set of prices (size of house, number of rooms, extra features, etc). Then, he throws in, for free, drone photos/video.

Now, pause. It’s SO obvious what’s up. Plainly. Here is the twist, there is legal precedent for this kind of thing. Sort of.

I used to attend a large machinegun shoot in Kentucky. At the shoot one of the side attractions was that you could go for a ride in a Vietnam area Huey helicopter or Apache gunship. The twist: you could NOT purchase a ticket. You could, however, make a donation to the historical museum that owns the choppers and become a member for a year. If you made a certain minimum donation then part of your membership included one ride in the chopper. A larger donation let you ride the Apache instead of Huey. The ride was free, no extra charge. You paid for the museum membership. Doing it this way bypassed a set of laws regarding chartering or the taking of passengers (ala, like a commercial airline) for helicopter rides.

So, this guy is following that legal model. You can’t charge for drone work without your p107. He’s not charging for that. He is charging for his ground DSLR photos. The drone shots are free, he took them (switching hats) as a hobbyist who likes houses.

Let the debate begin... (I’m turning notifications off)
 
Variation: you go out and photograph a house with your drone, totally free. You give the photos to someone utterly free of charge.

You offer a Photo editing service. You charge to edit photos. He brings you the photos to edit them. A quick “Auto Contrast” and maybe a crop and it’s done. $$ and no p107
 
Similar lines. A local boat captain likes to take friends out for a ride on his boat. If people pay you to go for a ride on your boat that makes you a charter captain and you need certification and insurance, etc. So, there is no charge to ride on the boat. However, you can buy beer or pop or water. Water is $20 a bottle, beer is $30 a bottle. Says so right on a little menu taped to the fridge and coolers. It’s survived several coast guard visits.

I think there is a legal gap here.
 
Variation: you go out and photograph a house with your drone, totally free. You give the photos to someone utterly free of charge.
You offer a Photo editing service. You charge to edit photos. He brings you the photos to edit them. A quick “Auto Contrast” and maybe a crop and it’s done. $$ and no p107
he charges to take ordinary photos .. then gives the clients, for no extra charge, drone footage.
Absolute genius.
He doesn't have to pay the huge $150 fee for a 107 certification - That's an instant bonanza.
I'm sure the FAA would never be able to work out what's really going on.
No-one at the agency is smart enough for that.

Your friend is only fooling himself if he really believes that and also making himself look a fool to his clients.
 
Last edited:
There's no longer any debate regarding this. The FAA has made it clear that any sUAV flight that benefits a business is commercial and requires the operator to be Part 107 certified.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan AISCF
To me the question is not can you ‘get away with it‘, sure you can.

But under SCRUTINY the ‘gap’ collapses.
 
If the drone footage is created in the conduct of or incidental to a business it is considered commercial even absent consideration being received....

PRECISELY !! There is no gray area here or loophole. This guy is breaking the law no matter how clever he thinks he is. It is just a misconception that money has to change hands or even that there is any profit involved. Even if he did the complete photo shoot and drone footage for free, he still needs a Part 107 license.

My question is why would he go through the trouble of being so careful and crafty instead of just getting the license? Just do the right thing!
 
In the US, according to the FAA Regulations, any photo used in promotion of a business (includes Real Estate photos) is commercial and requires a Part 107 certificate to be legal. Your friend is not smart, he is conducting business ILLEGALLY! He can call the FAA at (844) 359-6982 and tell them his situation and they will tell him whether he needs a Part 107 license to do what he is doing. I have called them for a similar situation and the regulations are very clear about this.
 
Absolute genius.
He doesn't have to pay the huge $150 fee for a 107 certification - That's an instant bonanza.
I'm sure the FAA would never be able to work out what's really going on.
No-one at the agency is smart enough for that.

Your friend is only fooling himself if he really believes that and also making himself look a fool to his clients.

Sigh. Sarcasm doesn’t help. The answer was already given, without any. It only intimidates people from asking basic questions.

If you return to my OP you might notice I gave an example where the governing bodies PLAINLY know what’s being done Re: helicopter rides. It’s CLEARLY a run around the law. They are taking advantage of a loophole in the letter of the law. And, guess what... they are still doing so. And others have followed suit. Sometimes this happens. The spirit of my was, is this type of loophole present here. The simple answer was given immediately in the first reply, directly to the point. I don’t think it was necessary to berate the q&a.
Have a nice day.
 
Sigh. Sarcasm doesn’t help. The answer was already given, without any. It only intimidates people from asking basic questions.

If you return to my OP you might notice I gave an example where the governing bodies PLAINLY know what’s being done Re: helicopter rides. It’s CLEARLY a run around the law. They are taking advantage of a loophole in the letter of the law. And, guess what... they are still doing so. And others have followed suit. Sometimes this happens. The spirit of my was, is this type of loophole present here. The simple answer was given immediately in the first reply, directly to the point. I don’t think it was necessary to berate the q&a.
Have a nice day.


Keep in mind that some of us don't read each and every reply to a question and simply offer our input independent of other answers.
 
Sigh. Sarcasm doesn’t help. The answer was already given, without any. It only intimidates people from asking basic questionsI don’t think it was necessary to berate the q&a.
Have a nice day.
Sorry if you took offense but the proposal was so silly that it deserves to be treated that way.
Thinking the FAA wouldn't be able to work it out. Really?
 
Sorry if you took offense but the proposal was so silly that it deserves to be treated that way.
Thinking the FAA wouldn't be able to work it out. Really?

And yet this same FAA, which clearly can work it out, is powerless to stop the helicopter rides for donations deal, still going on. It’s not about figuring it out, it’s what the law says and doesn’t say. That’s the only answer I was seeking.
 
And yet this same FAA, which clearly can work it out, is powerless to stop the helicopter rides for donations deal, still going on. It’s not about figuring it out, it’s what the law says and doesn’t say. That’s the only answer I was seeking.

I don't think it's because the FAA can't see what is happening in the helicopter case, but rather because the laws are crafted differently. The law on flying UAVs clearly states that to be covered by Section 336 you must be flying purely recreationally, and is further expanded on by saying that any flight that benefits a business, paid or not, is, by definition, not recreational.

With that definition there is no way for your friend to claim he is flying under Section 336 if he is deliberately flying to take photos with the intention of providing them to a business. That fails both tests - it is clearly not recreational to begin with and it has the intent to benefit a business - potentially two businesses in fact - both his own and the real estate company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dallas Drone Guy
Back about 35yrs ago I used to take a lot of friends for a Sunday evening cruise around the country side. Often times they would donate a few dollars to the rental of the aircraft. I was not charging them for taking them flying. They were voluntarily donating to the cause so we could go flying. None of us had any money much back then and at the time pooling our money together to have a good time seemed like a good thing. Fast forward to this day and age and some keyboard warriors would turn me in for commercial flying without the proper license. LOL
 
Back about 35yrs ago I used to take a lot of friends for a Sunday evening cruise around the country side. Often times they would donate a few dollars to the rental of the aircraft. I was not charging them for taking them flying. They were voluntarily donating to the cause so we could go flying. None of us had any money much back then and at the time pooling our money together to have a good time seemed like a good thing. Fast forward to this day and age and some keyboard warriors would turn me in for commercial flying without the proper license. LOL

Under Part 61 a private pilot can share operating expenses, including rental and fuel, with passengers. So what you did is entirely legal.
 
Now, I’m SURE this won’t cause a huge debate and tons of replies and pointing to laws vs guidelines and opinions but... here we go.

So, there is a guy I ran into a few weeks back, we started talking drone business and it comes out that he doesn’t have his 107, yet our conversation was about making money shooting drone footage. Here is the summary of his method: he charges to take ordinary photos using his DSLR on the ground (of houses, this is for real estate) and the then gives the clients, for no extra charge, drone footage. His website is careful never to distinguish two prices between with vs without drone footage. He only has one set of prices (size of house, number of rooms, extra features, etc). Then, he throws in, for free, drone photos/video.

Now, pause. It’s SO obvious what’s up. Plainly. Here is the twist, there is legal precedent for this kind of thing. Sort of.

I used to attend a large machinegun shoot in Kentucky. At the shoot one of the side attractions was that you could go for a ride in a Vietnam area Huey helicopter or Apache gunship. The twist: you could NOT purchase a ticket. You could, however, make a donation to the historical museum that owns the choppers and become a member for a year. If you made a certain minimum donation then part of your membership included one ride in the chopper. A larger donation let you ride the Apache instead of Huey. The ride was free, no extra charge. You paid for the museum membership. Doing it this way bypassed a set of laws regarding chartering or the taking of passengers (ala, like a commercial airline) for helicopter rides.

So, this guy is following that legal model. You can’t charge for drone work without your p107. He’s not charging for that. He is charging for his ground DSLR photos. The drone shots are free, he took them (switching hats) as a hobbyist who likes houses.

Let the debate begin... (I’m turning notifications off)
Sure why not.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,354
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.