This is a 107 flight, correct?

[Maddy]

I'm flying the drone to take photos of it, not with it. If any of the photos are used for commercial use it would be considered to be under sec 107. Am I correct?
I probably should know this already...

 

[mossphotography]

If the flight isn't for "hobby or recreation", then it falls under Part 107.

To fly under 101 rules, the flight you must fall under all 5 parts of 14CFR Part 101 (e). Those are:

"(a) The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(b) The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

(c) The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;

(d) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and

(e) When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation."

What is the intended use of the photos of your drone?

 

[Pharm]

Have someone else fly it for fun, then take photos of it. No Part 107 needed. No difference in that and you approaching someone who is already flying a UAV and taking pictures of it. If you take photos of a plane in the air (or on the ground) you aren’t required to have a pilot’s license.

The only problem you might run into are copyright or trademark issues by shooting a trademarked or copyrighted design/product like a DJI Phantom.

Interesting question though.

 

[Meta4]

I'm flying the drone to take photos of it, not with it. If any of the photos are used for commercial use it would be considered to be under sec 107. Am I correct?
I probably should know this already...

These threads seem to be evolving to who can come up with the most unlikely contrived situation involving possible commercial use of a photo.
But the FAA has no rules about photos or selling photos.
Their rules are about flying and that would be their focus if you were to ask them.
In the hypothetical scenario, it sounds a lot like recreational photography and whether or not you later found a client to pay for the results is of no concern.

In the real world, the FAA aren't going to give a toss unless you do something stupid and dangerous while flying the drone.

 

[Maddy]

These threads seem to be evolving to who can come up with the most unlikely contrived situation involving possible commercial use of a photo.
But the FAA has no rules about photos or selling photos.
Their rules are about flying and that would be their focus if you were to ask them.
In the hypothetical scenario, it sounds a lot like recreational photography and whether or not you later found a client to pay for the results is of no concern.

In the real world, the FAA aren't going to give a toss unless you do something stupid and dangerous while flying the drone.

To me, this is not a contrived nor a hypothetical scenario. I am trying to decide if I should apply for a daylight operations waiver for some art that I am working on.

 

[Maddy]

If the flight isn't for "hobby or recreation", then it falls under Part 107.

To fly under 101 rules, the flight you must fall under all 5 parts of 14CFR Part 101 (e). Those are:

"(a) The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(b) The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

(c) The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;

(d) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and

(e) When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation."

What is the intended use of the photos of your drone?

Thank you for that.
I am doing light painting with the drone as a brush. At this point it is hobby flight, but if I get to where I think I can go selling prints could be an option.

 

[Meta4]

At this point it is hobby flight

There's your answer. That's all you need to know.

but if I get to where I think I can go selling prints could be an option.

That's irrelevant to the original question.
The FAA is only concerned with the flight and flying - not what might or might not happen to photos sometime in the future.

 

[sar104]

There's your answer. That's all you need to know.

That's irrelevant to the original question.
The FAA is only concerned with the flight and flying - not what might or might not happen to photos sometime in the future.

It is an interesting question. Since it's the intent of the flight that matters, the photos taken by someone else are irrelevant. But if the purpose of the flight was to take photos of the drone for commercial use, then the intent of the flight would clearly not be recreational. On the other hand - that's a situation that the FAA would never be able to verify and almost certainly would have no interest pursuing.

 

[dkeberhardt]

If you use your drone in any way that could or will lead to getting paid, then it is Part 107. The FAA does regulate commercial flying - in other words, pilots who fly airplanes for hire must have at least a Commercial Pilot's license. Same with drones. If you're flying involves getting paid (either directly or perhaps indirectly) then it is Part 107. My FAA endorsements include Part 107, Private Pilot, Commercial Pilot, and ATP.

 

[dkeberhardt]

"The FAA is only concerned with the flight and flying - not what might or might not happen to photos sometime in the future."

That is completely wrong. We have Part 107 precisely for covering paid for photos and video.

 

[sar104]

"The FAA is only concerned with the flight and flying - not what might or might not happen to photos sometime in the future."

That is completely wrong. We have Part 107 precisely for covering paid for photos and video.

While it's somewhat counter-intuitive, @Meta4 is correct. Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95) protected recreational flight from any new FAA regulation. As a result, 14 CFR Part 107 narrowly defined recreational flight as an exemption from the overarching regulation of sUAS operations. That narrow definition hinged on the intent of the flight, not the subsequent use of images or video obtained during the flight. In other words, provided that the intent of the flight, at the time, was purely recreational, subsequent use of images or video, even compensated, does not change the nature of the flight. This was confirmed in several FAA statements and memos, for example:

williams-afs-80 - (2015) legal interpretation on news gathering.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

in which it was stated:

Whether an individual taking pictures or videos or gathering other information using a model aircraft under the section 336 carve-out could later sell those pictures, videos, or other information would depend on the person's original intentions in conducting the operation. If the individual takes the pictures or videos or gathers other information as part of a hobby or recreational activity, then a later decision to sell some or all of those pictures, videos, or other information would not change the character of the operation as part of a hobby or recreational activity that falls within the section 336 carve-out for model aircraft. No FAA authorization for that operation would be required.​

​

However, if the individual is conducting the operation with the primary intention of obtaining pictures, videos, or other information to sell, then the operation is commercial in nature and not part of a hobby or recreational activity. As noted above, such operations currently would require an authorization from the FAA. Evidence that may indicate an individual's true intentions in conducting an operation may include the frequency with which pictures, videos, or other information collected using an unmanned aircraft is later resold. Operations that frequently result in pictures, videos, or other information that is sold to a third party may indicate that the operation is in fact commercial in nature notwithstanding the individual's claim of a hobby or recreational purpose. The FAA would have to consider each case on its own merits.​

Whether or not the upcoming revisions to 14 CFR, based on the revocation of Section 336 in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, changes the narrow definition is yet to be seen. But as of now, that's how the law is written.

 

[dkeberhardt]

While it's somewhat counter-intuitive, @Meta4 is correct. Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95) protected recreational flight from any new FAA regulation. As a result, 14 CFR Part 107 narrowly defined recreational flight as an exemption from the overarching regulation of sUAS operations. That narrow definition hinged on the intent of the flight, not the subsequent use of images or video obtained during the flight. In other words, provided that the intent of the flight, at the time, was purely recreational, subsequent use of images or video, even compensated, does not change the nature of the flight. This was confirmed in several FAA statements and memos, for example:

williams-afs-80 - (2015) legal interpretation on news gathering.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

in which it was stated:

Whether an individual taking pictures or videos or gathering other information using a model aircraft under the section 336 carve-out could later sell those pictures, videos, or other information would depend on the person's original intentions in conducting the operation. If the individual takes the pictures or videos or gathers other information as part of a hobby or recreational activity, then a later decision to sell some or all of those pictures, videos, or other information would not change the character of the operation as part of a hobby or recreational activity that falls within the section 336 carve-out for model aircraft. No FAA authorization for that operation would be required.​

​

However, if the individual is conducting the operation with the primary intention of obtaining pictures, videos, or other information to sell, then the operation is commercial in nature and not part of a hobby or recreational activity. As noted above, such operations currently would require an authorization from the FAA. Evidence that may indicate an individual's true intentions in conducting an operation may include the frequency with which pictures, videos, or other information collected using an unmanned aircraft is later resold. Operations that frequently result in pictures, videos, or other information that is sold to a third party may indicate that the operation is in fact commercial in nature notwithstanding the individual's claim of a hobby or recreational purpose. The FAA would have to consider each case on its own merits.​

Whether or not the upcoming revisions to 14 CFR, based on the revocation of Section 336 in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, changes the narrow definition is yet to be seen. But as of now, that's how the law is written.

I stand by exactly what I posted. The FAA has Part 107 to cover commercial operations of sUAS, much the same as the FAA regulates all airplane commercial operations.

 

[Meta4]

I stand by exactly what I posted. The FAA has Part 107 to cover commercial operations of sUAS, much the same as the FAA regulates all airplane commercial operations.

The FAA has rules about flying commercially, but none about selling photos.
If the flight is recreational now, but someone buys one of the resulting images in the future, that doesn't retro-actively make a previously legal recreational flight into something else.

 

[sar104]

I stand by exactly what I posted. The FAA has Part 107 to cover commercial operations of sUAS, much the same as the FAA regulates all airplane commercial operations.

Except that's not what you said - you said that "We have Part 107 precisely for covering paid for photos and video." The words "photo" and "video" do not appear anywhere in Part 107, and nor do the words "commercial" or "business". You can stand by whatever you like but, when it is trivial to read the law and see that your assertion is wrong, then that's rather silly, even more so when the FAA has issued written legal clarification on exactly the point under discussion.

 

[xspwhite]

The FAA has rules about flying commercially, but none about selling photos.
If the flight is recreational now, but someone buys one of the resulting images in the future, that doesn't retro-actively make a previously legal recreational flight into something else.

I dont think it matters if it is his intent to sell the photos or not. They are his and he can do as he pleases with them. So long is he is not running a drone for hire business or working for a company, then he is flying for recreational purposes, his own satisfaction, and enjoyment.

 

[dkeberhardt]

The FAA has rules about flying commercially, but none about selling photos.
If the flight is recreational now, but someone buys one of the resulting images in the future, that doesn't retro-actively make a previously legal recreational flight into something else.

Yes, that is true but this didn't directly relate to the original post. I'm pretty well versed in the FAA's rules regarding flying for commercial reasons as I have more than just a Part 107 license. I also have airplane ratings for Private, Commercial, and ATP licenses. If you fly airplanes, helicopters, or sUAS for the purpose of making money from that flying activity, then you have to have the appropriate license. How tough is this to understand?

 

[sar104]

Yes, that is true but this didn't directly relate to the original post. I'm pretty well versed in the FAA's rules regarding flying for commercial reasons as I have more than just a Part 107 license. I also have airplane ratings for Private, Commercial, and ATP licenses. If you fly airplanes, helicopters, or sUAS for the purpose of making money from that flying activity, then you have to have the appropriate license. How tough is this to understand?

How tough is it for you to simply read Part 107 and the FAA legal interpretation linked above? You are demonstrably not well versed in this stuff at all. And the rules for manned aircraft and sUAS are not the same, as you would have realized if you bothered to read before posting.

 

[BigAl07]

I dont think it matters if it is his intent to sell the photos or not. They are his and he can do as he pleases with them. So long is he is not running a drone for hire business or working for a company, then he is flying for recreational purposes, his own satisfaction, and enjoyment.

While "intent" is usually hard to prove it's also pretty hard for someone who is a Commercial/Professional Photographer who actively sells his/her work to say the prints they are selling were "captured" during a Hobby/Recreational Flight.

Intent DOES matter 100%. You can't simply stand t here saying you're just a hobbyist and then go fly with intent to take pics to sell and assume that makes you legal.

 

[xspwhite]

While "intent" is usually hard to prove it's also pretty hard for someone who is a Commercial/Professional Photographer who actively sells his/her work to say the prints they are selling were "captured" during a Hobby/Recreational Flight.

Intent DOES matter 100%. You can't simply stand t here saying you're just a hobbyist and then go fly with intent to take pics to sell and assume that makes you legal.

I somewhat disagree, if he is not making a living at it, or doing it for someone else, then he is just a hobbyist. Part 107 applies to commercial applications. If he was taking pictures for advertising or TV, or other business applications, that would be a different ball game. But I think his photos would fall into an noncommercial art category.

 

[Maddy]

I've got it now. Not knowing where I'm going with the images for know, it is safe to call this hobby. Besides, it sure doesn't feel like work.