Wedding video question

May I suggest those interested investigate further the FAA discussion at https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf, which states in part:

"The statute requires model aircraft to be flown strictly for hobby or recreational purposes. Because the statute and its legislative history do not elaborate on the intended meaning of 'hobby or recreational purposes,' we look to their ordinary meaning and also the FAA’s previous interpretations to understand the direction provided by Congress.[3] A definition of ‘hobby’ is a 'pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation.’ Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at www.merriam-webster.com (last accessed June 9, 2014). A definition of recreation is 'refreshment of strength and spirits after work; a means of refreshment or diversion.'

“[3] In construing statutory language, agencies should assume that the ordinary meaning of the language accurately expresses the legislative purpose of Congress. Agencies are also permitted to presume that Congress was aware of the agencies’ administrative or adjudicative interpretations of certain terms and intended to adopt those meanings. See BedRoc Ltd. v. U.S., 541 U.S. 176, 183 (2004); see also Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 300 (1981); Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580-81 (1978).” et seq.

It seems to me the answer as to what is commercial v. recreational is not strictly contained within either FAA parts 107 or 336, but within the common dictionary meanings of the terms, and then, when there still are ambiguities in the law, one must first look to the intent of Congress, and of course, any case law.
 
May I suggest those interested investigate further the FAA discussion at https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf, which states in part:

"The statute requires model aircraft to be flown strictly for hobby or recreational purposes. Because the statute and its legislative history do not elaborate on the intended meaning of 'hobby or recreational purposes,' we look to their ordinary meaning and also the FAA’s previous interpretations to understand the direction provided by Congress.[3] A definition of ‘hobby’ is a 'pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation.’ Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at www.merriam-webster.com (last accessed June 9, 2014). A definition of recreation is 'refreshment of strength and spirits after work; a means of refreshment or diversion.'

“[3] In construing statutory language, agencies should assume that the ordinary meaning of the language accurately expresses the legislative purpose of Congress. Agencies are also permitted to presume that Congress was aware of the agencies’ administrative or adjudicative interpretations of certain terms and intended to adopt those meanings. See BedRoc Ltd. v. U.S., 541 U.S. 176, 183 (2004); see also Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 300 (1981); Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580-81 (1978).” et seq.

It seems to me the answer as to what is commercial v. recreational is not strictly contained within either FAA parts 107 or 336, but within the common dictionary meanings of the terms, and then, when there still are ambiguities in the law, one must first look to the intent of Congress, and of course, any case law.
In interpreting the language, it is the pilot's true intent at the time of initiating the flight, and not what he or she does later with the footage that determines the characterization of the flight. You may legally sell footage from a recreational flight for money, as long as that was not your intent at the time of the flight, without a 107 certification. Even a 107 certified pilot may fly recreationally.
 
I have never read of one single case that could fall into the "seemingly innocent or innocuous cases" category which resulted in a prosecution and would be interested to see a link or links to these cases.
The instances referred to that I've come across have all been through one or more of the daily national newspapers online and never headline stories. Some have been noticed by a close colleague who spends more time reading than I do. I spend perhaps 30-45 minutes most days on current and business affairs - a mixture of BBC TV (when in the UK) and online newspapers.

I don't keep records of links (unless it's important or business-related). One case I remember from November 2017 (?) was from Essex (?) and involved still photographs taken of a steam railway (?), then offered for sale in a local hobby shop. Again allowing for memory inaccuracies, I think a surprisingly high (five figure?) fine was agreed upon without the case going all the way through the courts. In the past six months or so, I've come across or been told about five or six separate cases - and there must be more that I've missed because of the amount of news stories generated to feed a 24 hour news industry.

Sadly, as I'm sure you realise, our basically good police forces in the UK are compelled to justify their existence by performance statistics (not necessarily a bad thing). Criminals are more aware of how to reduce the chances of prosecution. And "non-criminals" who commit legal wrongdoings are easier targets to bump up the figures with less work involved. Add a negative public opinion re drones to the mix, plus a jobs-worthy attitude creeping in, etc, and today's situation is hardly surprising.
 
One case I remember from November 2017 (?) was from Essex (?) and involved still photographs taken of a steam railway (?), then offered for sale in a local hobby shop. Again allowing for memory inaccuracies, I think a surprisingly high (five figure?) fine was agreed upon without the case going all the way through the courts.
This appears to be the incident mentioned: Essex drone snapper dealt with by police for steamy train photos
Although the article mentions that sale of the images was not legal, that is not what the flyer was charged with.
The offence was one relating to safety and there's no mention of a 5-figure penalty.
a drone photographer who took pictures of the Tornado steam engine has been given a community punishment by Essex Police in the UK – after Network Rail complained his craft was being flown too close to a railway line.
the operator was identified and "reported" on October 1 for his breach of the Air Navigation Order. Police said the man had flown the drone "within 50 metres of other people and property out of their control".


Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic, this gives an idea of how seriously the FAA is concerned with drone photo sales:
Basically No One In The US Is Getting Fined For Flying Drones Without A Licence
 
The only cases I could find where the FAA took any action have involved flying over stadiums.
In at least one of them, the pilot didn't just fly over, but also crashed into the stadium seating with spectators! :eek:
 
In at least one of them, the pilot didn't just fly over, but also crashed into the stadium seating with spectators! :eek:

Not just that but the drone that caused this was a karma drone. Thank god, they are out of business.
 
This appears to be the incident mentioned: Essex drone snapper dealt with by police for steamy train photos
Although the article mentions that sale of the images was not legal, that is not what the flyer was charged with.
The offence was one relating to safety and there's no mention of a 5-figure penalty.
a drone photographer who took pictures of the Tornado steam engine has been given a community punishment by Essex Police in the UK – after Network Rail complained his craft was being flown too close to a railway line.
the operator was identified and "reported" on October 1 for his breach of the Air Navigation Order. Police said the man had flown the drone "within 50 metres of other people and property out of their control".


Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic, this gives an idea of how seriously the FAA is concerned with drone photo sales:
Basically No One In The US Is Getting Fined For Flying Drones Without A Licence
Yes, Meta4, that might possibly be the same case. Or possibly not, despite some similarities, because your article/report was dated mid October - when I was overseas, and not in the UK - and over a month earlier than what I read at a time when my interest would have only just been aroused as a new drone owner. The reporting is very different and focuses on a completely different offence. The national newspaper report I read instead focused on the selling of his photographs, illegally taken without a commercial licence - not where or how he flew the drone, contravening regulations - and definitely mentioned the settlement of an amount of money that was surprisingly high.

It's worth repeating the words of appeal from the Essex police to illustrate how the authorities are thinking:
"If you witness what you believe to be a dangerous use of a drone please contact 101 or email [email protected] stating the location and time and any evidence you can gain of the offence."
 
If the video that you shoot is intended to be a wedding gift to the bride and groom - I would think that one could possibly argue that since it is replacing something of value, the video has the value of the thing it replaced and therefore was actually created for a form of compensation.

If it were me, and if I wanted plausible deniability - I’d be sure to purchase a wedding gift for the couple just like all the other guests did so that argument could not be made.
 
If the video that you shoot is intended to be a wedding gift to the bride and groom - I would think that one could possibly argue that since it is replacing something of value, the video has the value of the thing it replaced and therefore was actually created for a form of compensation.

If it were me, and if I wanted plausible deniability - I’d be sure to purchase a wedding gift for the couple just like all the other guests did so that argument could not be made.

In my simple and honest thinking, I can say that If I get a job request for a specific video filming or image capture, I give a quotation, I do the job, I give an invoice for the agreed amount, I get the money, then it’s commercial purpose. All others are private and recreational since the regulating law is not specific casa by case.
All us must be respectful with others privacy, with of a safe flight, with of avoiding risks and doing a nice flight with fun.
Regards,
Christian Larson.
 
I think drone laws are kinda like quantum mechanics. If anyone ever tells you they understand it 100%, they're full of crap.

This is of course because the hobby is still relatively new, so many of the laws and regulations are also new (and not very clear and concise in their wording). Add to that the fact that you've got different countries, states, counties, cities, and even individual parks all coming up with their own rules, it gets increasingly difficult to keep up on what's what. Maybe one day things will be much simpler to understand, but for now there's a lot of gray area.

Best advice I could give is: stay safe, be smart, and have fun. Maybe in that order?
 
  • Like
Reactions: lardron
I think drone laws are kinda like quantum mechanics. If anyone ever tells you they understand it 100%, they're full of crap.

This is of course because the hobby is still relatively new, so many of the laws and regulations are also new (and not very clear and concise in their wording). Add to that the fact that you've got different countries, states, counties, cities, and even individual parks all coming up with their own rules, it gets increasingly difficult to keep up on what's what. Maybe one day things will be much simpler to understand, but for now there's a lot of gray area.

Best advice I could give is: stay safe, be smart, and have fun. Maybe in that order?
Put the fun first! :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: lardron
Bless me Father.....I used my P3P to photo an area of a disc golf course for their landscaping, at a friend's request. No money, just out of friendship. No idea I was doing anything wrong at the time. Waiting for the knock on my door.....!

I wouldn't expect that in most situations you would have a problem. However, if something were to go wrong - or you just ran into a local law enforcement officer who was having a bad day - you just don't know what COULD happen.

Yes, it is probably low risk. However, some of us are rather adverse to risk. There are lots of benefits to having a part 107 certificate and very few donwsides to having one.
 
No. If the shooting methods are discussed with the customer, then you do not need any certificates.
Wrong!

Why resurrect a three year old thread, and post a totally inaccurate response?
 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,095
Messages
1,467,612
Members
104,981
Latest member
brianklenhart