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

[Meta4]

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.

There is no need or responsibility to tell the property owner any thing of the sort.
The FAA has no rules about selling or using photos.
They have rules about commercial flying.
The photos in the hypothetical scenario would have been taken 100% legally in a recreational flight and that's the end of the FAA's possible concern with them.
Whether the resulting images sit in someone's personal album or get used in a million dollar advertising campaign makes no difference.

 

[Drestin Black]

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.

Just curious, what are you insuring against inside someone’s home? I shoot inside homes all the time. If I broke something big, their home owners would cover it. What would my dslr and I be worried about?

 

[TR Ganey]

Just curious, what are you insuring against inside someone’s home? I shoot inside homes all the time. If I broke something big, their home owners would cover it. What would my dslr and I be worried about?

The home owner suing to recover their deductible. Maybe the insurance company suing to recover their losses. In the U.S.A. it is a sue happy world. Anybody will sue anybody for anything if they think for a second they can get some money out of it. Sad but true.

 

[BigAl07]

Just curious, what are you insuring against inside someone’s home? I shoot inside homes all the time. If I broke something big, their home owners would cover it. What would my dslr and I be worried about?

The larger Real Estate firms (at least in my area) won't even consider using our services (photography, repairs, etc) unless the contractor carries $1M in liability and in some cases (our company is excluded) worker's comp insurance. We created a Corp packet with all pertinent information that we submit to the firms in order to be considered for use. This packet includes all FAA details, NC DOT sheets, proof of insurance, Worker's Comp exclusion forms, and an up to date Background Check (we work with schools and other institutions).

 

[PhantomFandom]

There is no need or responsibility to tell the property owner any thing of the sort.
The FAA has no rules about selling or using photos.
They have rules about commercial flying.
The photos in the hypothetical scenario would have been taken 100% legally in a recreational flight and that's the end of the FAA's possible concern with them.
Whether the resulting images sit in someone's personal album or get used in a million dollar advertising campaign makes no difference.

So taking photos and video that then get sold, is not commercial flying? If I say I am just a recreational pilot with no intent, and then someone else sells 1,000 of my "recreation" photos it's OK?

We can agree to disagree.

 

[Meta4]

So taking photos and video that then get sold, is not commercial flying? If I say I am just a recreational pilot with no intent, and then someone else sells 1,000 of my "recreation" photos it's OK?

The hypothetical scenario mentioned above had the drone flyer taking some photos on a recreational flight.
If he was to sell some photos from that flight at a later date, the past (completely legal) recreational flight doesn't magically become an unlicensed commercial flight.
It's the flying that matters. The FAA doesn't care about photos or selling photos - they have no rules about photos or selling photos.

 

[sar104]

So taking photos and video that then get sold, is not commercial flying? If I say I am just a recreational pilot with no intent, and then someone else sells 1,000 of my "recreation" photos it's OK?

We can agree to disagree.

That's where the law is not very clean. You can push this to either logical extreme and common sense gives different answers. The occasional, incidental use of material obtained during recreational flight is not inconsistent with the flight being recreational. But the regular, repeated use of your material is going to change that - the claim of recreational flight is not going to work if it just happens to be producing a significant supply of material used commercially.

The FAA addressed the incidental use of photos and videos shot this way in a 2015 legal interpretation, as well as in other documents.

Dropbox - williams-afs-80 - (2015) legal interpretation.pdf

 

[BigAl07]

So taking photos and video that then get sold, is not commercial flying? If I say I am just a recreational pilot with no intent, and then someone else sells 1,000 of my "recreation" photos it's OK?

We can agree to disagree.

You're simply missing the whole point.

In theory, let's say someone were to inherit every single image I've taken as a Recreational/Hobbyist sUAS operator (and there are MANY). They could "Legally" take every single of them and sell them for whatever they can get out of them and no law is broken. They were taken "legally" as a recreational operator and AT A LATER TIME they became valuable/important enough to warrant being sold.

INTENT AT TIME OF THE FLIGHT is what matters.

@sar104 said it very well in the post above ^^^^^^

 

[PhantomFandom]

That's where the law is not very clean. You can push this to either logical extreme and common sense gives different answers. The occasional, incidental use of material obtained during recreational flight is not inconsistent with the flight being recreational. But the regular, repeated use of your material is going to change that - the claim of recreational flight is not going to work if it just happens to be producing a significant supply of material used commercially.

The FAA addressed the incidental use of photos and videos shot this way in a 2015 legal interpretation, as well as in other documents.

Dropbox - williams-afs-80 - (2015) legal interpretation.pdf

Thank you Sar. You can see that it is somewhat open to interpretation. The applicability of the law should not depend on quantity. In my opinion (yes it's an opinion), it also should not depend on a totally subjective criteria. If it is only based on intent, that is totally subjective. I can take a few hundred pictures and some great video as long as my intent was only to use them for my own collection. That WAS MY INTENT when I flew. However a year later an opportunity comes up and I decide to sell them for a nice profit. That's legal? Where is the line between legal and illegal?
Does it change if I do that regularly, say five times in a year? Even if each and every time my intent was only to keep them personally in my collection?
Does it change in the example above if instead of selling them myself I give them to a friend to sell? Then that friend gives me a "gift" as a thank you for the wonderful pictures he made a profit on?
Does it change if instead of several hundred pictures it is only 2 or 5 pictures?

If you can honestly tell me that it doesn't matter in any of those scenarios and it is all legal because in each case my intent was to not fly commercially then I accept your view. What I am saying is that the law needs to be applied equally in all cases.

 

[Drestin Black]

The larger Real Estate firms (at least in my area) won't even consider using our services (photography, repairs, etc) unless the contractor carries $1M in liability and in some cases (our company is excluded) worker's comp insurance. We created a Corp packet with all pertinent information that we submit to the firms in order to be considered for use. This packet includes all FAA details, NC DOT sheets, proof of insurance, Worker's Comp exclusion forms, and an up to date Background Check (we work with schools and other institutions).

Does a company like drone insurance dot com cover it well ?

 

[PhantomFandom]

That's where the law is not very clean. You can push this to either logical extreme and common sense gives different answers. The occasional, incidental use of material obtained during recreational flight is not inconsistent with the flight being recreational. But the regular, repeated use of your material is going to change that - the claim of recreational flight is not going to work if it just happens to be producing a significant supply of material used commercially.

The FAA addressed the incidental use of photos and videos shot this way in a 2015 legal interpretation, as well as in other documents.

Dropbox - williams-afs-80 - (2015) legal interpretation.pdf

I read through the 2016 legal interpretation that you pointed to. Thank you for that. I had not seen it and was only going by the Part 107 wording. In Part 3 of that document I see where the ruling could indeed indicate exactly what you have been saying. It does also state that frequency of such actions may move it to Part 107 operations and each is taken on a case by case basis. So I do stand corrected that in your example of the farmer friend, it is perfectly legal if the farmer then sells or gains profit from those photos.

I do also still think that a law/regulation/ruling should not be left that vague or based on a criteria that is totally subjective. No one can say for sure what the intent was in the mind of a person using a drone for pleasure or for business. If I say my intent was purely recreational then no one can argue to the contrary because they can't be in my head.

 

[sar104]

I read through the 2016 legal interpretation that you pointed to. Thank you for that. I had not seen it and was only going by the Part 107 wording. In Part 3 of that document I see where the ruling could indeed indicate exactly what you have been saying. It does also state that frequency of such actions may move it to Part 107 operations and each is taken on a case by case basis. So I do stand corrected that in your example of the farmer friend, it is perfectly legal if the farmer then sells or gains profit from those photos.

I do also still think that a law/regulation/ruling should not be left that vague or based on a criteria that is totally subjective. No one can say for sure what the intent was in the mind of a person using a drone for pleasure or for business. If I say my intent was purely recreational then no one can argue to the contrary because they can't be in my head.

The problem arose because of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, passed by Congress in 2012, which made it very difficult for the FAA to regulate effectively. Instead they did what they could, and made the distinction based on intent - since the Special Rule referred to recreational flying.

 

[BigAl07]

Does a company like drone insurance dot com cover it well ?

I can't answer that since I've only used Aviation type insurance for a few years now. I wish I had a better answer but I don't know anything about that company. Maybe someone else who has experience with them will chime in.

 

[Meta4]

I do also still think that a law/regulation/ruling should not be left that vague or based on a criteria that is totally subjective. No one can say for sure what the intent was in the mind of a person using a drone for pleasure or for business. If I say my intent was purely recreational then no one can argue to the contrary because they can't be in my head.

The difficulty you've had understanding this is because you think the FAA has regulations about selling photos, when they don't.
Their regulations are about flying.
They have no regulations relating to the sale of photos.
There is recreational flying - flying you do for your own satisfaction and recreation.
And commercial flying where you fly for a client to satisfy their requirements.
It's the flying that's the issue - not what you do with photos.

 

[y2khardtop]

you can give away all of the photos you want, but as soon as someone uses them for a Real Estate ad, or anything else other than personal use, they become commercial. It's not just about money, it's about usage and intent.

 

[Forgotten_Fox]

you can give away all of the photos you want, but as soon as someone uses them for a Real Estate ad, or anything else other than personal use, they become commercial. It's not just about money, it's about usage and intent.

That includes photos you yourself use to further a business, such as watching your cows, or seeing what crops need watered from the air.

 

[bullerman1946]

I am selling my Phantom 3 standard to a farmer. He said he has been wanting one. I assume to use in his farming but I don't know. I told him about the 107 license. He asked me what I used it for. I told him I had thought about taking some aerial photos for a friend of mine that has a realestate company. But for now I am just flying as a hobby.

 

[Scott Davis]

you can give away all of the photos you want, but as soon as someone uses them for a Real Estate ad, or anything else other than personal use, they become commercial. It's not just about money, it's about usage and intent.

I would add to your comment one thing.
“Intent at time of flight”.

If I’m flying for the fun of it and someone wants to use my photo, the FAA doesn’t care. However if you make a habit of it happening, I think they could.

 

[BigAl07]

I would add to your comment one thing.
“Intent at time of flight”.

If I’m flying for the fun of it and someone wants to use my photo, the FAA doesn’t care. However if you make a habit of it happening, I think they could.

^^^^ Bingo!! The actual use of the data (picture, video, etc) isn't actually the concern. The INTENT at the time of the flight is what matters.

You can't HOBBY for someone else so if you're doing something for someone else you've taken yourself OUT of the Hobby protective bubble.

 

[roosta]

The hypothetical scenario mentioned above had the drone flyer taking some photos on a recreational flight.
If he was to sell some photos from that flight at a later date, the past (completely legal) recreational flight doesn't magically become an unlicensed commercial flight.
It's the flying that matters. The FAA doesn't care about photos or selling photos - they have no rules about photos or selling photos.

Why Judge Judith Sheinlin earns $40M per year. Too many Americans doing it willy-nilly.

Looks like the OP was answered in first couple of posts. Always comes down to intent/use.

RoOSTA