Tcope, that is an interesting point that I've been pondering. I am preparing for the FAA ruling by creating a portfolio of videos, some of which I would like to give to businesses. I am not profiting from this but, arguably, they sort of are....
Selective Following of FAA Rule
- Thread starter Andrey320
- Start date
Andrey320 said:
The way the FAA look at it you do not have to profit from your video. What draws the line for them is if you are flying for anything other than just the pure joy of flying and taking pictures. If your photos are used by you, or anyone else, for any purpose then you have failed the hobby test and will be subject to Part 107. Even if you give the video to a business interest to use as they see fit it is no longer viewed as a hobby flight by the FAA.
People also need to keep in mind that the proposed NPRM covers ONLY commercial/non-recreational flying. So the guy that asked about his kids drone, unless your kid is doing it in the furtherance of your, or someone else's, business she has nothing to worry about.
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
That being said then the weather pictures I take and tweet to the weather station that puts them up during the weather is wrong ?
dirkclod said:
AS far as the FAA is concerned, yes. But I sincerely doubt they will ever do or say anything about it.
I can see if your videos and pictures are used on a regular basis, you would have set a usage case that would weight the other use as being more normal use for you than recreational flying.
If you just tweeted videos and pictures and then a new station uses those, like they do of hail pictures and storm damage, I don't see how you could be considered to be doing that with intent. The law is really full of intent tests. Was it your intent to shoot the video specifically for use by the station?
Steve I would like to believe that the loss of revenue is not actual. Being a government employee I do actually believe they would technically lose money, but that is the way they calculate governmental cost. They start with the assumption that each person in the process has to start from scratch. An example is the cost of hooking up a new water meter. The city will charge $500 dollars for the meter, time of the worker, tools and cost of gasoline and insurance on the city truck. The worker becomes more efficient with each meter installation because the tools do not need to be bought again, and more meters can be installed from one truck. If the government is actually losing money then the structure is not efficient and the government is not being good stewards of our money.
If you just tweeted videos and pictures and then a new station uses those, like they do of hail pictures and storm damage, I don't see how you could be considered to be doing that with intent. The law is really full of intent tests. Was it your intent to shoot the video specifically for use by the station?
Steve I would like to believe that the loss of revenue is not actual. Being a government employee I do actually believe they would technically lose money, but that is the way they calculate governmental cost. They start with the assumption that each person in the process has to start from scratch. An example is the cost of hooking up a new water meter. The city will charge $500 dollars for the meter, time of the worker, tools and cost of gasoline and insurance on the city truck. The worker becomes more efficient with each meter installation because the tools do not need to be bought again, and more meters can be installed from one truck. If the government is actually losing money then the structure is not efficient and the government is not being good stewards of our money.
So go for it. During my time as a commercial pilot I learned a few dirty little secrets involving the FAA. One of those secrets is that the FAA doesn't really have all that much power over individuals if said individuals refuse to play by the FAA rules. Let me explain.dhide371 said:
First lets look at the most obvious comparison to the pilot certificate, the drivers license. If you do something bad in a car, you could lose your drivers license for a period of time or even indefinitely. If you then continue to drive and get caught, you'll end up with additional fines and/or addition time added to your license suspension. But more importantly if you get caught driving while suspended, chances are the local PD will take note of who you are, what you drive and possibly even where you work and what your schedule is. Then they'll watch and wait and if they catch you in the act again, you could face jail time in many cases.
Now most people consider the FAA to be the 'police of the skies' and therefore also assume that FAA would take similar action in cases where a person operated an aircraft without a certificate (the FAA doesn't do licenses). And the dirty little secret is the FAA does not act in a similar way. They simply do not have the staff budget or legal muscle required to bring about a similar level of enforcement when it comes to keeping those who are not legally qualified out of the cockpit. The one and only thing the FAA can realistically threaten pilots with is loss of their pilot certificate.
So in cases where pilots own their aircraft outright and are willing to fly said aircraft without insurance, there is very little the FAA can threaten them with should they run afoul of the regs. You break the regs? We'll take your pilot cert. You keep flying anyway? We'll take your cert away longer and kindly ask you to please not fly while you don't hold a cert. And that's about the reality of how its gone in most cases historically. They slap your wrist. And then they slap your wrist harder and ask you to stop all the while hoping you won't realize they really aren't going to ever do much beside the wrist slaps they've already tried.
If you want to go for it, then go for it. Will you run the risk that they will choose you to make an example out of should they ever get off their butts and start making examples? Absolutely. But given how I've seen them handle cases of pilots flying without any kind of certification in the past, I wouldn't hesitate to hang up a shingle and start making money if I had a mind to do so.
*Nothing in the statements contained in this post should be considered legal advice of any sort. Proceed at your own peril.
i have a question about a flight i did recently. A friend of mine has a race car & the organisers of his championship have a "media day" before the start of the season, wanting some unique footage they asked if i would come down with my Phantom. After alot of emails (including seeing my insurance certificate) the track owners agreed. Anyway i had a day off work did some flying/filming & sent both the track owners, championship organisers & several people who race a copy of all the video/picture files. No money was taken by me, not even expenses for the day off work or for fuel to get there as both flying & motorsport are big interests of mine, i did accept a free breakfast. I flew 50metres away from the general public, i did get closer to some of the racers etc who were informed of the exercise & i deemed them to be under my control.
As i was asked to go (but no money exchanged hands) would this be considered commercial? Also as i have no control over what the third parties do with done with my footage how can i be responsible if they decide to try to make money from it
PS i'm in the UK so CAA rules apply, but believe they are very similiar to the FAA's
As i was asked to go (but no money exchanged hands) would this be considered commercial? Also as i have no control over what the third parties do with done with my footage how can i be responsible if they decide to try to make money from it
PS i'm in the UK so CAA rules apply, but believe they are very similiar to the FAA's
If you take a commercial flight and take pictures out the window and sell them, would that require you to have a permit?
What if an Inspire has two operators? One flying, one taking pictures? The guy taking the pictures is in the same position as the guy taking pictures in an airplane.
Its just plain stupid if you think about it.
The same way its not legal to use handheld devices to call or film as a driver, you have handsfree sets or set the video to record before driving and therefor you aren't breaking any laws...
And a different question - in the US, if you film yourself driving above the speed limit, can a publicized video be used to accuse you of breaking that law?
What if an Inspire has two operators? One flying, one taking pictures? The guy taking the pictures is in the same position as the guy taking pictures in an airplane.
Its just plain stupid if you think about it.
The same way its not legal to use handheld devices to call or film as a driver, you have handsfree sets or set the video to record before driving and therefor you aren't breaking any laws...
And a different question - in the US, if you film yourself driving above the speed limit, can a publicized video be used to accuse you of breaking that law?
I don't know about the UK, but here in the states the FAA has ruled in the past that any form of compensation will move an operation into the commercial category. A free breakfast would most certainly qualify as compensation in their eyes if it suited their need to hang someone. In the past, they've even ruled that nothing more than 'good will' qualifies as compensation when it comes to determining whether or not something qualifies as a commercial operation. You're stuck and you need a ride, I'm not doing anything else and I've got a plane I can fly, so I help you out and fly you where you need to go and you don't owe me anything. The FAA has ruled that would be considered an on-demand commercial flight in the past.p fandango said:
So in this case, an organization wants aerial imagery of their event, you have a flying machine which can produce the aerial imagery they're looking for, you're not doing anything else so you decide to help them out and they will owe you nothing. That is still an on-demand for hire operation in the eyes of the FAA. The fact that you're a lousy businessman and didn't actually collect any money for the operation is of no concern to the FAA.
Now all that being said, in almost every case I'm aware of where the FAA took action against a pilot for conducting illegal commercial operations, there was a legit commercial operator who didn't get that work and filed a complaint with the FAA. IOW the FAA isn't out looking for these operations, they only look into them when someone files a complaint.
Well by your own description, that flight is already a commercial operation being conducted by (we assume) certified commercial pilots.Fyod said:
People have most definitely been convicted of crimes in the past based on video they themselves shot of the act of committing said crime and the posted to a public sites i.e. youtube the like.
I saw an episode of Modern Family the other night where an unknown person was spying on them with a drone while they were swimming. It was pretty funny.
I'm pretty sure this breaks the commercial use regulation as well.
I'm pretty sure this breaks the commercial use regulation as well.
