What constitutes "commercial use"?

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.

No the FAA nor anyone else has anything to do with selfie sticks or RC boats. (I know...you're being sarcastic.) It's only when the camera can fly. Literally if something hovers 12 inches off the ground technically the FAA sees that as their air space. If money is being made off your hover shot, directly or indirectly, you're doing something illegal....according to the FAA. Nuts.
 
Here is the thing... much of what the FAA seems it would like to implement will never work and will be impossible to enforce or defend.

It would be better (although also horrible) if they required everyone buying a quad to register somehow and get some sort of minimal license. They are opening a can of worms trying to define so many things as "commercial use".

For example if I shoot some video, give it to someone and they later use it commercially for their business or something who is the "commercial user"? They will have a really hard (if not impossible) time proving that the originator intended and/or gained from the video. Some claim the FAA is exercising "guilty until proven innocent" and maybe so in their rhetoric but that won't hold up if cases go to court. Or what if someone downloads one of my videos from youtube and then uses it "commercially"? In those kinds of scenarios I'd fight it to the top.

In the end they will have to prove intent, and prove that money exchanged hands and that that money was for purchase of the pics/vids... as much as I do not have a lot of faith in the government or court systems this is how the system works under most circumstances. To suggest that if you later have any kind of gain (notoriety, financial, promotion of business, etc) is ludicrous. Why don't we all purposely bring calamity upon us by doing this instead, eh?

My fear is that in the meanwhile some people will be harassed (some might deserve it) and some will have to spend the $$$ to go to court and win some cases thereby setting some precedents.

If they were smart they would realize that by trying to enact something that will not stand up they are going to ruin their chances of sensible regulations... but then duhhh... I have had several conflicts with various branches of the govt. (winning all in the end) and their policies often seem to be written by retards. Retards that can speak the legal language, yes, but nevertheless retards.

The main thing we can all do is fly safely to avoid incidents that will cause attempts to restrict us more. 'Nuff said
 
I've only paid attention to this topic for a few months, and it really angers me. There are so many responsible "pilots" who can/should be allowed to make a few $$$ with their investment. It's a bunch of BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bigdz
If the 30,000 per month sales of the Phantom are true and a major percentage of that is N.America and Europe, lets say just 20% of those people decide to begin charging for their services. How would an agency that should be concentrating on the safety of passenger planes be able to enforce whatever it is they're trying to enforce on 3 pound plastic RC toys, and additionally have time to study each and every person's "offense"?
 
If the 30,000 per month sales of the Phantom are true and a major percentage of that is N.America and Europe, lets say just 20% of those people decide to begin charging for their services. How would an agency that should be concentrating on the safety of passenger planes be able to enforce whatever it is they're trying to enforce on 3 pound plastic RC toys, and additionally have time to study each and every person's "offense"?

Our courts will be clogged with drone pilots waiting to be prosecuted until eventually the FAA increases their staff, at the cost of the taxpayer.
 
Very good point. Same situation over here.
 
How do these regulations apply to drone operators who are under 18?

I doubt anyone knows, even the FAA. From now on when I fly I am getting a licensed pilot to fly the aircraft and I will only be operating the camera ;)
 
Ok how about this senario, a high school coach asks you to take your UAV & photograph a volleyball or basketball team in a closed gymnasium. Is that governed by the FAA if you sell images?
 
Ok how about this senario, a high school coach asks you to take your UAV & photograph a volleyball or basketball team in a closed gymnasium. Is that governed by the FAA if you sell images?

haha You know there are so many scenarios that they can't possibly cover the way they are trying to go about this. And whether images or videos are sold or not sold has nothing whatsoever to do with public safety which is what they are using as a justification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larry L
How do these regulations apply to drone operators who are under 18?
Laws and regulations aside, my P2 box clearly says that it is only intended to be used by people aged 18+. It doesnt mean a thing of course, probably an arse-coverer for DJI.
 
Laws and regulations aside, my P2 box clearly says that it is only intended to be used by people aged 18+. It doesnt mean a thing of course, probably an arse-coverer for DJI.

It will also be hard to prove in many cases who is actually flying or operating the camera and/or the craft. I have several videos on youtube and I uploaded them but that doesn't mean I was the pilot or cameraman. Might not have even been my aircraft.
 
Ok how about this senario, a high school coach asks you to take your UAV & photograph a volleyball or basketball team in a closed gymnasium. Is that governed by the FAA if you sell images?

The FAA has no jurisdiction over anything happening indoors.
 
I know I'm late to this thread but I've got some thoughts that I think are worth sharing. Before I get started let me say this. There are lots of comments in this thread which are stated in a way that suggests they are fact when in reality they are the opinion of the poster and nothing more. My comments in this post are going to be a mixture of both opinion and fact but I will do my best to point out which is which.
I'm starting to think I've made a $1300 mistake and that I'm not going to get much use out of my Phantom until the FAA figures this out. I never thought a tiny camera attached to a 3lb plastic quadcopter would require a pilot's license to fly 50' off the ground in order to make a few bucks, but what do I know.

All of this first bit is opinion only. I know lots of people will argue with me on this but if you bought a Phantom 3 with the sole intention of using it for commercial photography, you bought the wrong drone. There is indeed a market for drone photography. But by and large, the people who are doing it for profit successfully are using equipment with price tags and capabilities that lie quite a bit North of a Phantom 3. Please note, I'm not saying professional level shots and video can't be done with a Phantom 3. I'm saying if that's the ONLY reason you bought it, you bought the wrong drone. If all you're ever going to do with it is fly it for commercial photography, then you need a platform that can fly when you need it to fly regardless of what the winds are doing or what the light looks like. A Phantom 3 simply isn't that drone. Give it the right conditions and it will fly great and shoot great looking images. But flying for hire means you fly when the client wants not when mother nature does.

Now for the regulations thing. First the most important fact you'll find on this topic. The FAA has yet to make it clear what exactly constitutes commercial use of a drone. We can talk about how they've ruled on the topic of commercial use of aircraft in the past but there is no way to know whether any of those rulings will apply the same way to UAVs once they make up their minds.

There was once a case where a private pilot was given a violation for conducting a commercial flight (for compensation or hire is the way they describe commercial operations) even though no money changed hands. They have ruled that in those cases 'good will' can be considered compensation for the purposes of the regs. Will they hold UAV's to the same standard? No one knows.

The regulations for private pilots also clearly state that a private pilot may fly an aircraft in furtherance of a business so long as the flight is incidental to the business purpose. The example often cited to clarify this is a business professional who is a private pilot and must travel for a business meeting. Because that pilot could simply drive to get to the business meeting, that private pilot could also fly there because in this case, the use of the place is incidental i.e. just flying from point a to point b which any private pilot can legally do for recreation. And again it remains to be seen whether or not the FAA will apply the same logic to UAV's. But its my opinion that if they do, a plausible case could be made that use of the UAV is incidental to the photography operation because I can easily use a tethered balloon or a camera rig suspended from a kite to achieve the aerial shots I want.

And finally this. The FAA rarely goes looking for violations. Most of the time the only reason they investigate anything is if someone or something brought the issue to their attention. Get your business big enough that you're taking work away from someone who actually holds a commercial waiver and you bet they'll file a complaint against you. Or have a mishap which makes the 6 o-clock news and you could get a letter or a phone call. But if no one ever tells the FAA what you're doing, you might be able to operate a profitable business for quite a while.
 
I know I'm late to this thread but I've got some thoughts that I think are worth sharing. Before I get started let me say this. There are lots of comments in this thread which are stated in a way that suggests they are fact when in reality they are the opinion of the poster and nothing more. My comments in this post are going to be a mixture of both opinion and fact but I will do my best to point out which is which.


All of this first bit is opinion only. I know lots of people will argue with me on this but if you bought a Phantom 3 with the sole intention of using it for commercial photography, you bought the wrong drone. There is indeed a market for drone photography. But by and large, the people who are doing it for profit successfully are using equipment with price tags and capabilities that lie quite a bit North of a Phantom 3. Please note, I'm not saying professional level shots and video can't be done with a Phantom 3. I'm saying if that's the ONLY reason you bought it, you bought the wrong drone. If all you're ever going to do with it is fly it for commercial photography, then you need a platform that can fly when you need it to fly regardless of what the winds are doing or what the light looks like. A Phantom 3 simply isn't that drone. Give it the right conditions and it will fly great and shoot great looking images. But flying for hire means you fly when the client wants not when mother nature does.

Now for the regulations thing. First the most important fact you'll find on this topic. The FAA has yet to make it clear what exactly constitutes commercial use of a drone. We can talk about how they've ruled on the topic of commercial use of aircraft in the past but there is no way to know whether any of those rulings will apply the same way to UAVs once they make up their minds.

There was once a case where a private pilot was given a violation for conducting a commercial flight (for compensation or hire is the way they describe commercial operations) even though no money changed hands. They have ruled that in those cases 'good will' can be considered compensation for the purposes of the regs. Will they hold UAV's to the same standard? No one knows.

The regulations for private pilots also clearly state that a private pilot may fly an aircraft in furtherance of a business so long as the flight is incidental to the business purpose. The example often cited to clarify this is a business professional who is a private pilot and must travel for a business meeting. Because that pilot could simply drive to get to the business meeting, that private pilot could also fly there because in this case, the use of the place is incidental i.e. just flying from point a to point b which any private pilot can legally do for recreation. And again it remains to be seen whether or not the FAA will apply the same logic to UAV's. But its my opinion that if they do, a plausible case could be made that use of the UAV is incidental to the photography operation because I can easily use a tethered balloon or a camera rig suspended from a kite to achieve the aerial shots I want.

And finally this. The FAA rarely goes looking for violations. Most of the time the only reason they investigate anything is if someone or something brought the issue to their attention. Get your business big enough that you're taking work away from someone who actually holds a commercial waiver and you bet they'll file a complaint against you. Or have a mishap which makes the 6 o-clock news and you could get a letter or a phone call. But if no one ever tells the FAA what you're doing, you might be able to operate a profitable business for quite a while.

You make some very valid points; it's also important to note that the FAA itself does not have the power to prosecute an individual. So, as you've said, the most they can do independently (and what they do quite frequently) is send cease and desist letters.

One thing no one has mentioned is that, compared to the US population, a lot more citizens are misinformed about and fear drones than the number who own a drone. The FAA is supporting popular opinion, but anyone who understands the issue at hand knows they're going at it in an impossible way.
 
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.
Right. But ianwood stated "If you are commissioned to fly your drone either for a fee, barter or otherwise, it is commercial". So if my sister "commissioned" me to take video of the wedding with my drone (with a fee, barter or otherwise), according to what he stated, that would be "commercial". which I think is either incorrect or doubtful.
 
Right. But ianwood stated "If you are commissioned to fly your drone either for a fee, barter or otherwise, it is commercial". So if my sister "commissioned" me to take video of the wedding with my drone (with a fee, barter or otherwise), according to what he stated, that would be "commercial". which I think is either incorrect or doubtful.

Pretty sure if it was your sister that would be personal use. If it was someone you'd never met before and they were going to give you some other form of compensation, or you got some other benefit from it that made it worth your while to do it, that would be commercial.

This is just what I would expect the FAA would say and not what I think or what would necessarily be enforceable.
 
wow.. Flying drones in USA simply sucks. Too much BS to deal with. Good luck guys
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

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