Has nothing to do with exchange of money. If it's for commercial benefit, 107 is needed. Even if a realtor uses a drone for his/her own listings, 107 required.
Pay for regular ground photos, free drone photos, no P107
- Thread starter Drestin Black
- Start date
Exchanging anything of value as a result of flying your drone requires an FAA license and is considered a commercial transaction. Presumably, the buyer who pays for photos taken with the DSLR on the ground values the arial photos as much.
Even you give out the photo free of charge, you still need 107 because the photos were for commercial uses
I believe the "intent" at the time the photo was take would come into play.
For example, I took several photos of a friends farm a few days ago. This friend did not ask for the photo's to be taken nor did he even know they had been taken until I sent them to him. I just thought he might enjoy seeing his place from a different perspective. This guys place has been in their family for generations and I seriously doubt that it would ever be for sale but let's just assume that for what ever reason he decided to sell it. Then he decided to use the photos that I gave him to advertise the sale of the property. This would be just one simple example of pictures being used for commercial use that were legally taken by a hobbyist. I cannot control what someone else does with photo's that I take and give away and as long as the photo's aren't requested to be taken, and as long as I have no reason to expect that the photo's that I'm giving away will be used for commercial purposes then I have committed no crime.
I understand that folks like me out here flying for fun and distributing pictures and video everywhere are just despicable to all of you who purchased your drones to try and turn a profit but it is what it is. I bought my drones to play with and enjoy doing just that and I really enjoy sharing what I video and photograph with anyone interested. I hope to start uploading media to a youtube channel soon where people world wide can enjoy. I sure hope no one rips any of that content off youtube and tries to make a profit off it!
I wouldn't expect anyone to argue that the case you described above is not perfectly legal.
I really can't agree with that. If your true intent was purely recreational then you need to make sure you let your friend know that the pictures cannot be used in any commercial way. That would include selling the farm, putting the pictures on his farm website, or even using the pictures in a very benign way such as surveying his farm for proper crop placement. The part about " I cannot control what someone else does with photo's that I take and give away" is the biggest issue. It is your responsibility to let your friend know what can and cannot be done with those photos.
Otherwise so many recreational flyers could try to skirt around the law by using similar excuses. "Oh I had no idea that the aerial video I took of my friend's house and property (with the For Sale sign on the front lawn) would be used to help sell the house". Really?
I'm not saying this is you, and I fully believe you are not trying to do anything wrong. However, I just don't see the point of all those who try their hardest to get away with commercial use and not get licensed. Why not just put the time in and get your Part 107 license?
And what do you think I should do if he used the photos during advertising his farm for sale. Do you think I should file a law suit and take him to court. What would I sue for?
Why don't we brush away all the BS and just tell it like it is. There are those that would love to see the drone industry so regulated that only those holding a 107 are allowed to even purchase any kind of drone let alone fly one. These same people would love to see the price of the drones driven up so high that few could afford them. Nothing like keeping "certain people" in their place.
Then there are those like myself that believe that anyone that can afford one and wants one should be able to go out and buy/fly it. Regardless of whether you are licensed or not should have nothing to do with your responsibility to operate safely and the liability of your actions if you choose not to.
I will have to agree to disagree with you and wish you the best in your interests in micro managing the drone world. Happy Flying!
P.S. I guess when the drone world becomes so regulated that no one can fly them any more I can just be satisfied flying real fixed wing planes that I've been licensed to fly since the early 80's.
I’m sorry but that’s not right.
Loan your car to someone, tell them they should not get into an accident. They do. Are you responsible?
We cannot truly control what others do, only what we do. The pilots actions were legal. He face them to someone in good faith. That’s where legal responsibility ends. What the other person does is a separate matter. (I am, of course, excluding situations of obvious attempts at deception)
If I loan my buddy my drone and tell him; do not fly over people in any way shape or form, then he goes right out and plows into the heads of a group of people, who’s responsibility is it? (Again, ignoring scenarios where my buddy was stark raving mad and screaming, I need to behead people!)
Not everyone is aware of, can afford to or is capable to getting a p107. And some with them still do dumb [Edited by Moderator]. Requiring a p107 for commercial work is a simple money grab; if it was all about improved safety then it would focus more on that and include practical tests and test flights, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Whoa! There's no reason to get personal or to put words in my mouth. I never said any of those things and I certainly do not believe any of those things! I don't want to limit who can purchase or fly drones. It is wonderful that they are coming down in price where average consumers can purchase them. Everyone should be able to own one if they so choose, and use it responsibly.
I also never said that you should do anything to your friend if he were to use them commercially. What I did say is that it is your responsibility to advise him of what he can and cannot do with them, when you give him the pictures. That's all.
As to being a pilot (which I also am), then it makes it all that much easier for you if you so choose to get your Part 107 certification. In fact if you are current with your airman's certificate then you get to take the online short test.
So please don't tell me what I am thinking or what I want for the drone world. I was just advising you on what the laws are. What you choose to do is entirely up to you.
I agree with all of that. I never said he is responsible after the fact. I said it is his responsibility to advise his friend of what the laws are regarding usage when the pictures are given to him. After that, then yes it is totally on the friend. In each of the cases you mentioned above, notice you said that you would tell your friend what not to do. If they disregard that warning then you did your due diligence.
As to Part 107 sure it is a money grab but that's no different than getting your car registered or inspected. Thing is that it's the law and that's why we do it. Totally agree that it should be geared more towards safety and a practical exam would be a great idea too. Although then the cost would be even higher and put it out of reach for even more people.
But there really is nothing in either FAA regulation or published interpretation to support your view on that, reasonable though it may seem. It has been clarified, multiple times, to refer only to the intent of the flight. Yes - that does create an apparent loophole - and it has undoubtedly been exploited. However, the FAA is clearly not worried about the occasional exploitation of that loophole. They are trying to prevent unlicensed commercial use, and no one trying to run a business is going to be able to keep claiming recreational status in that manner.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
The FAA charter has no mention of regulating commercial use.
They are focused on safety.
Their charter may not mention it, but their sUAS guidelines and interpretations do, numerous times. For example:
Certificated Remote Pilots including Commercial Operators
Dropbox - model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
N017RW
Premium Pilot
I'm not disagreeing about their mission - I'm just pointing out that in their regulation of sUAS and distinction between recreational and Part 107 they explicitly and repeatedly refer to commercial operations. Are you disagreeing with that?
N017RW
Premium Pilot
That's not true at all my friend. INTENT of the flight is what matters. What the recipient of the data (pictures of video etc) does is out of your control. The only thing you can control is how and WHY you took the images. If you followed all rules & regulations during the capture of the video that is all that matters. Now if you took them for your friend knowing they were going to sue them for selling the property etc then that changes your INTENT at the time of the flight.
Think of it like this... you can buy an item and give it to a friend. If that friend then in turn goes out and commits a crime with "said item" is it your fault? This is assuming it's not a restricted item and the person if legally able to have such . . .
And once again I point out that the only thing I said is that it is his responsibility to tell his farmer friend not to use the pictures for any commercial purpose. That's it. If the farmer then goes ahead and does so, it's not the responsibility of the drone operator. You may say that's a hassle but it isn't at all. I have actually done that with friends that I have given video and pictures to before I had my Part 107.
That's wrong buddy. Capturing of the images/video is the only aspect that is regulated. If he captured them as a hobbyist that is all that matters. A photo/video captured by a hobbyist CAN be later used in a NON-Hobby use. The Part 107 operator does not need to declare/stipulate how the image/video is to be used. All that matters is INTENT of the flight!!
For instance if you capture this AMAZING shot "coincidental to the hobby flight" and later realize it has value or commercial (for instance NEWS) importance you can then sell/give/loan the image/video. But if your intention is to capture something to sell etc then the flight is Part 107.
I stress INTENT of the FLIGHT is what is the deciding factor.
Now if a hobbyist "repeatedly" happens to find a photo/video etc that has value then they may be exploiting the system but it would then be up to the FAA to prove this.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2016
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 23
- Age
- 63
It’s not the exchange of money, the test is furthering a business, as stated by others.
It’s been my experience you can not get liability insurance for such flights without your Part 107. I imagine his photography liability insurance company will be fine with taking his premiums wink wink nod nod, UNTIL he has a claim. Anyone who does photography inside someone’s home without insurance is foolish.
Similar threads
