What constitutes "commercial use"?

But are they spending resources going after this sort of thing?
The FAA doesn't have the resources to chase people that take a few real estate photos and I haven't heard of any prosecutions.


It's completely laughable that the FAA currently require a pilots license to commercially take photos that are completely legal for recreational flyers.
It's also laughable that they made such a ruling and expect it to be obeyed.
Plenty of flyers out there make a few dollars but ensure that they fly safe and stay below the radar.

On the contrary, most people wanting to make a buck on this will be as responsible as possible. Since word of mouth is your best friend, you certainly don't want your client telling others you crashed twice during the filming. Whereas recreationally, if you brain fart into a tree, who cares?

Like I've said before, require an easily obtainable permit and insurance so that if a damage claim happens, the person can be found. There is nothing else to worry about. There will not be any Phantoms hitting airplanes. Idiots like the drunk White House guy etc. will not sign up to obtain these requirements anyways, so they just need to quit bullshitting and get over it. How many flights have Phantom owners made? Hundreds of thousands? And how many flights were so stupid that law enforcement had to get involved, maybe a dozen worldwide?
How many of those flights were not commercial, but not following regulation (height, LOS distance...), a quarter? This isn't an issue. Just another example of government unable to keep up with technology.
 
The FAA has only charged one drone pilot for commercial use. Only one. and they dropped that charge before the case even got to the first judge.

The charges and the first NTSB hearing [link] and another [link]
The FAA appealed to the full NTSB where only the 91.13 careless and reckless charge was upheld and sent back to the first judge. [link]
Pirker settled rather than pursue the rehearing. Here is the statement from his lawyer why they decided to settle. [link]

What is important to note is that the full NTSB decision was very narrow and only decided that hobby aircraft are aircraft for the purpose of 91.13 careless and reckless charges. Some people have somehow interpreted this to mean that model aircraft are now subject to all FAA rules for manned aircraft. That is untrue. The only rule that this decision affects is 91.13 [cite].

So what about the hundreds of personal drones shooting aerial photography for hire?

Other than Pirker, NO DRONE OPERATOR has been charged or fined for commercial flight. The FAA may decide to take on another example case (in my opinion they will likely pursue a certificate action against a licensed private pilot) but since the Pirker fiasco there have been no charges or fines from the FAA. Lots of letters and overt threats of legal action, but no charges.
 
Actually, the FAA has indicated that material shot for personal use doesn't prevent it from being licensed for commercial uses after the fact. As is the same for other types of amateur works done without location permits or other licenses.
I would like to see a cite for this since the FAA would see this as using the photos in furtherance of a business. You can fly your Phantom over your neighbor's house and give him the photos, but as soon as he gives the photos to a realtor to sell the house, your flight just became commercial.
 
I would like to see a cite for this since the FAA would see this as using the photos in furtherance of a business. You can fly your Phantom over your neighbor's house and give him the photos, but as soon as he gives the photos to a realtor to sell the house, your flight just became commercial.

Not if you took the pictures without the intent of furthering a business.

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 infor-mation would depend on the person's original intentions in conducting the operation. If the individual's [sic] 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.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/264441605/FAA-Memo-on-Media-Use-of-FAA
 
Pretty similar rules (laws) in the UK. I understand there has to be a line in the sand, otherwise they have to either regulate all fliers or regulate none. Neither of those would work. But I once got into a discussion with a farmer about being able to take off fly and land over his fields. He was agreeable, but said he would in return like a copy of the footage. I never took him up on that because I had unwittingly negotiated a contract in which I would have benefitted by being able to use his land to fly on. Sounds ridiculous I know, but as DevildogSoldier suggests, where the fine lines are drawn on this will not established until there is some case law to test out the exceptions to the rule.
 
I would have done it. The FAA isn't going to pursue a technical rule violation to that analaty unless you crash into a play yard and injure a kid, which would attract the FAA's attention.

Like many misdemeanors, if a cop didn't see it, it probably didn't happen in the eyes of the law.
 
(1) As a hobby I fly over and video construction. A public, state university is building a stadium. After construction is complete, I give the raw footage of my months of progress videos to the university. They combine it with some on-the-ground footage they took and create a presentation. The presentation is shown at a gathering of potential ticket buyers for football games. There are also some still photos created from my videos in a pamphlet handed out. Commercial use?

(2) A contractor on that project, sees an "unlisted" video(s) of construction progress videos posted on YouTube. He puts a link to my video on his company's web page from a link I had posted on a discussion forum. Commercial use?

In both cases, I receive nothing. I also get nothing from YouTube.
 
Not if you took the pictures without the intent of furthering a business.

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 infor-mation would depend on the person's original intentions in conducting the operation. If the individual's [sic] 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.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/264441605/FAA-Memo-on-Media-Use-of-FAA

Thanks for the link. If this is the meno that Ianwood was referring to, it only makes permissible the sale of images from a personal drone to news media. The whole memo is directed to the news media use of UAV images. The paragraph that permits hobby flight images to later be sold, doesn't specify "to whom", but the paragraph is in section "III. News Gathering by an Individual Using a Model Aircraft"
 
(1) As a hobby I fly over and video construction. A public, state university is building a stadium. After construction is complete, I give the raw footage of my months of progress videos to the university. They combine it with some on-the-ground footage they took and create a presentation. The presentation is shown at a gathering of potential ticket buyers for football games. There are also some still photos created from my videos in a pamphlet handed out. Commercial use?

(2) A contractor on that project, sees an "unlisted" video(s) of construction progress videos posted on YouTube. He puts a link to my video on his company's web page from a link I had posted on a discussion forum. Commercial use?

In both cases, I receive nothing. I also get nothing from YouTube.
Two things. Technically the letter of the law says that both are commercial use. Also, profit or lack of it has absolutely nothing to do with commercial or non-commercial. Just the furtherance of a business. The college and the contractor in your examples.
In the latter example the FAA has said that YouTube postings alone are insufficient evidence of commercial use.

In the real world, the FAA has only tried to charge one individual with operating a personal drone for commercial use, and that charge was dropped before it got in front of an NTSB judge. The FAA has hundreds, if not thousands of people advertising their drones for commercial photography that they could pursue. The odds are in your favor that they won't pick you as their next test case.
 
I find it ridiculous that the difference between recreation and business is taking money for a photo, because there is no difference between the "recreational UAV" and "commercial UAV" at all. Same weight, same risks, usually same flight locations. To make a recreational drone a commercial drone, you then have to take the SD card out, post process, and sell. The whole process of profiting on the photo/video happens way after the flight and has no effect on the flight itself. The flight is a means to get a camera into the air. You never charge for getting a camera into the air.
This shouldn't be regulated by the FAA at all, this is a matter of business licenses. The FAA (and other bodies worldwide) are just attempting to profit off a sector that should not be in their regulatory space at all.

Just to be clear, I'm fine with the limitations on height, airport geofencing, etc. ~300ft. is just fine for 99% of commercial work I intend to do., but the FAA should leave flights under these limits alone, recreation or not. Just like small boats.
 
Last edited:
Steve, thanks for your interest. One additional comment. Regarding a "state" university, quoting wikapedia, "In the United States, most public universities are state universities founded and operated by state government entities"

Is a state operated and controlled university a business/commercial enterprise or being state run negate that?
 
Thanks for the link. If this is the meno that Ianwood was referring to, it only makes permissible the sale of images from a personal drone to news media. The whole memo is directed to the news media use of UAV images. The paragraph that permits hobby flight images to later be sold, doesn't specify "to whom", but the paragraph is in section "III. News Gathering by an Individual Using a Model Aircraft"

I know of at least one major studio that changed their official policy on the back of this memo after internal legal review. They are now actively shopping for B roll on Vimeo which they didn't allow only a few weeks ago.

That they came to this conclusion makes sense. The paragraph in question does not distinguish between news or entertainment and makes no such explicit restrictions to only news functions. Even if it did implicitly exclude all but news functions, it establishes a precedent for other media and it is not the FAA's remit to decide what is news and what isn't.
 
In trying to support the First Amendment for news organizations, the FAA has further blurred the line for everyone else.
 
Pretty much. Enough to make some big, conservative, risk-averse organizations comfortable.
 
Whether or not you charge for it directly or hide the charge under some other service is immaterial.

If you are commissioned to fly your drone either for a fee, barter or otherwise, it is commercial. If you do it of your own accord as a personal endeavor, it is not.
So if I use my Phantom to take video of my sister's wedding (which I am already attending), that would be considered "commercial"? That doesn't seem correct.
 
So if I use my Phantom to take video of my sister's wedding (which I am already attending), that would be considered "commercial"?
There will probably be a lot of people taking photos at the wedding.
And only one is likely to be considered to be doing it commercially.
That will be the guy with the big camera that charges for his work.
Everyone else (whether flying or on the ground) is simply taking photos for their own enjoyment and sharing some with friends and relatives would not be considered commercial.
 
"Commercial" use only comes into play when money, profit, promotion for profit or payment is involved. Like real estate videos for example. If you're paid to do an ariel job for a realtor for them to promote a property.... that's illegal according to the FAA. If you shoot the video for "free" and "only charge for the editing".... that's illegal according to the FAA because the footage is being use to make money by selling the property. If you shoot the video and edit it for free...as a gift... you're ok. BUT the realestate agent is then doing something illegal as the aerial footage is being used to promote a property.... aka selling a house.... for money. So that's illegal according to the FAA.

Obviously don't fly stupid, around crowds, public events, buildings, airports, neighbors back yards etc. But as far as the FAA is concerned: You can be flying/filming anywhere and if an FAA official comes up to you and asks, "what are you doing this for?"...and you say, "I'm a drone hobbyist and I'm flying around because its my hobby and it's fun." You're fine.

And no you're not doing anything illegal by filming your sisters wedding. UNLESS you're shooting it as an example to show to potential clients to get more paid wedding video jobs. Then....that's illegal according to the FAA.
 
Last edited:
Commercial use of drones:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Photography has been a hobby of mine for over 40 years, I don't have the answer for the FAA or for us but it seems like what they are trying doesn't make sense. Same pilot, same aircraft whether he sells his video or not, same risk.

I have done videos while driving using a dashcam or even a camera mount on my motorcycle. Does this mean if I sell the video I need a commercial drivers license? Maybe I shouldn't give anyone any ideas. :)

I know, it's a dilemma for everyone involved the bad thing is no matter how much or how tightly they will try to license the extreme offenders (and idiots) will not be the ones who are restricted by a license.
 
"Commercial" use only comes into play when money, profit, promotion for profit or payment is involved. Like real estate videos for example. If you're paid to do an ariel job for a realtor for them to promote a property.... that's illegal according to the FAA.

Yet if I take a 30ft. "selfie stick" and tape a GoPro on it to make similar shots, I wouldn't be under any regulation at all.
Unless there's a Federal Pole Agency too.

Its the exact same thing as if I took an RC boat, put a GoPro on it, threw it in a lake and someone required me to have a boating permit to sell the pictures. Nonsense.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,054
Messages
1,467,297
Members
104,919
Latest member
BobDan